The Boston Redevelopment Authority, supports a public Pier 5 park and withdraws privatized development Request for Proposals.
The Pier 5 Association (P5A) is pleased the authority is highly supportive of public open space and ensuring access to Boston harbor in historic Charlestown Navy Yard. The authority “enthusiastically supports increased open space and/or park creation at Pier 5 through philanthropic or private financing.”
P5A is also grateful for the support of the more than 3200 signatures and donations from the Charlestown community advocating a waterfront park on Pier 5 rather than a private residential/commercial development.
In a statement released by the BRA states it would also be willing to accept an asking price of $0 for Pier 5 if this was economically necessary to support additional public open space or other exceptional public benefits on Pier 5.
The public is excited to revive Pier 5 as a public park.
For more information to join our continuing efforts to support this important and historic project please visit www.Pier5.org.
Please sign the Petition
Support the Boston Navy Yard Largest Historic Pier
About Pier 5 Association Inc.
Our mission is to stop privatization of historic, public waterfront designated national park. Our vision is to turn historic Pier 5 into a public Pier 5 park for all!
Pier 5 Association, Inc. 501 3C is a tax deductible corporation
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
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 »
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 http://www.bostonplans.org/planning/planning-initiatives/plan-charlestown or email Ruggiero at firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.
Join us Thurs, 11/18 to help plan our next steps to fight climate change in Boston! Good afternoon Zachary, There’s a lot happening in the battle against climate change in Boston. Read on to find out more and learn how you can get involved. Campaign Update – BERDO Victory Celebration! The strength of Boston’s climate action coalition was celebrated in style at the BERDO victory party two days after the election of climate champion Michelle Wu as Mayor. Dwaign Tyndal of ACE and many other speakers noted that passage of the revised BERDO ordinance is just the beginning of the battle for implementation, but it was certainly a great milestone. During the BERDO campaign, BCAN: Collected over 2,000 petition signatures Solicited 210 letters to City Councilors Canvassed 9 different neighborhoods of Boston Presented to 14 different neighborhood and student organizations Produced 3 videos for Boston Neighborhood News and social media Organized 6 meetings with City Councilors and coalition reps Built relationships and engaged deeply with community members Thank you so much to the partners and allies who attended, spoke, and led this historic victory with us. Check here for photos and more details about the event, and here for a video of the 30-minute speaker program. Solidarity Spotlight – Our Green Justice Coalition Partners are Hiring! Communications Director, City Life / Vida Urbana Director, Homes for All Massachusetts Microgrid Manager, GreenRoots Coalition Organizer, Mass Renews Alliance Capacity Building Director, Chinese Progressive Association Office Manager and Events Coordinator, Chinese Progressive Association (Thank you to Community Labor United for putting these together!) Climate News – Don’t Swap One Dirty Fuel for Another A research team from Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health studied the health impacts of air pollution in the United States between 2008 and 2017. In addition to greenhouse gases, the burning of carbon-based fuels also produces PM2.5, a type of pollution consisting of tiny particles. The Harvard report focused on the PM2.5 coming from buildings and other “stationary fuel combustion sources.” During the time studied, coal use was decreasing in favor of gas, wood, and biomass. The study found that as health impacts from coal went down, those from the other three fuels went up. The authors concluded that “the increasing role of gas and biomass and wood emissions in the health burden of PM2.5 exposure indicates that swapping one air pollution-emitting fuel source for another is not a pathway to a healthy energy system.” The website of RMI, a non-profit devoted to clean energy, shows an interactive map based on data from the Harvard study. It shows that, in Massachusetts, air pollution caused 749 deaths and cost $8.4 billion in health impacts in 2017. What Can You Do? We celebrate the election of Mayor-Elect Wu, a strong climate advocate, and we must continue to fight against catastrophic climate change. Sign our petition and let Mayor-Elect Wu know that we want to see even bolder climate justice action by the City of Boston under her leadership. You can also fill out the community survey by the Wu transition team, expressing your concern and demand for action to fight climate change. Upcoming Events Massachusetts Climate Future Forum Sunday, November 14, 7pm | Register here Speakers include Bill McKibben of 350.org, the Rev. Vernon Walker of Communities Responding to Extreme Weather, Cabell Eames of A Better Future Project, and Senator Ed Markey. BCAN Action Team meeting Thursday, November 18, 6-8pm | There is a new zoom registration, so you need to register again, even if you have before. Info-share about Mayor-Elect Wu’s Green New Deal plan and more MCAN: Net Zero For All/Better Buildings webinar Monday, November 22, 7pm | Register here Educational webinar for the net zero stretch code 52nd Annual Day of Mourning Thursday, November 25, 12pm Cole’s Hill, Plymouth, MA | Information at http://www.uaine.org/ Indigenous folks all over the country and globe are on the frontlines of the most bold and just climate actions. Indigenous Rights and the Land Back movement are essential to the climate movement. Since 1970, Indigenous people & their allies have gathered at noon on Cole’s Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Participants in the National Day of Mourning honor Indigenous ancestors and Native resilience. It is a day of remembrance and spiritual connection, as well as a protest against the racism and oppression that Indigenous people continue to experience worldwide. For more events in and around our community, visit the BCAN Events Calendar. Just for Fun Tällberg’s Jazz for the Planet was recorded by GBH in Boston this month. Support the fight for climate justice in Boston! Donate to BostonCAN Register here to attend BCAN’s Action Team meetings. Want to continue the conversation? Join the Action Team GoogleGroup listserv! Facebook Instagram Twitter Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Boston Climate Action Network, please click here.
CHARLESTOWN CRANKS! Cranks! We were called “Cranks”! At the BPDA’s recent Charlestown Plan Meeting, many who attended to comment were called “Cranks”. Checking the “crank” definition and meaning in the Collins English Dictionary, we found that if you call someone a crank, “you think their ideas or behavior are strange”. However, the dictionary also defined the actual object “crank” as: “A crank is a device that you turn in order to make something move.”, “A device for communicating motion…”, “If you crank an engine or machine, you make it move or function…” (Collins English Dictionary) and “Next to the wheel, the crank is the most important motion-transmitting device…” (Brittanica) It seems that both definitions can be true, as we would like to transmit motion and some people, perhaps the BPDA, think our ideas are strange. Yes, we are the “Charlestown Cranks” who want to transmit motion toward the best results for our community, not more of the same disrespect and ignorance of our communities worth. We are the “Charlestown Cranks” trying to move the stalled engine of the BPDA toward solutions to the problems of our community: Yes, we are the “Charlestown Cranks” who want to transmit motion toward the best results for our community, with respect and consideration for our historic and vibrant community’s worth. We seek to preserve what makes it special and unique but address its weaknesses and vulnerabilities that are exposed by our geography. We are the “Charlestown Cranks” trying to move the BPDA toward solutions to the problems of our community: • The worst Traffic and Congestion in America! (U.S. News and World Report 10/13/2020) • Low Tree Canopy and High Asthma Rates • FEMA rating of Boston/Charlestown as “Retro-Grade”
urban climate resilience • Inadequate and poorly placed Public Open-Space, Low National rank for green space per resident (Geotab) • Disrespect for our natural treasure, our Boston Harbor, and our Chapter 91 public waterfront rights • Incremental “Spot re-Zoning” of lucrative development sites in lieu of masterplan • Planning justified using decades old, obsolete and expired Municipal Harbor Plan • Lack of frequent and reliable public transportation essential to working lifestyles. • The largest public housing redevelopment in Boston, which does not address social, psychological, environmental and well-being issues of residents • Intention to segregate affordable housing in towers next to the fumes of the Tobin Bridge • High particular matter in the air from gridlocked traffic and bottlenecked access • Lack of City-wide Comprehensive Professional Planning based on Cost-Benefit Analysis. • Preserving Charlestown’s History in the Founding of our Nation The list goes on…. Yes, we are the “Charlestown Cranks” trying to improve our community, work together, and get motion toward true waterfront access and social justice for All. We hope more “Cranks” will join in. PIER 5 Association Sherrie S. Cutler, AIA, sscutler@ECODESIGN.com Nitzan Sneh Christopher Nicodemus Rosemary Macero Diane Valle Zachary Cutler Gerald Angoff
The Boston Industrial Development Financing Authority (BIDFA) promotes economic growth and employment in the City of Boston by issuing bonds that finance the capital needs of the city’s businesses and institutions. It is guided by Boston residents with professional expertise in real estate development and finance. BIDFA has helped issue nearly $572 million in bonds and has helped to create and retain over 20,300 jobs since 1972. In 1971, BIDFA was created under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40D. In 1972 it was constituted as a board of the City of Boston and began its work as an affiliate of the Economic Development and Industrial Corporation of Boston (EDIC), a division of the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA). The BIDFA Board of Directors is a board of the City of Boston, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Current BIDFA Board of Directors: Katherine Kottaridis (Chair) Gerardo Espinoza Sammy Nabulsi Mayra I. Negrón-Roche Alisa R. Drayton
BPDA Updates CNC on Neighborhood Development Plans by Patriot-Bridge Staff • November 10, 2021 • 0 Comments By Adam Swift Representatives from the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA) gamely answered questions about developments that are in the pipeline for the neighborhood before the Charlestown Neighborhood Council at the CNC’s monthly meeting last week. Additionally, the BPDA representatives fielded the questions they have probably come to expect about how much they have backed the community when it has faced projects the neighborhood has opposed, such as the Hood project, and the scope of the PLAN: Charlestown process. “We have the opportunity as a community to ensure that we give them input, take what they are trying to do over the next two years,” said CNC Chair Tom Cunha. Jason Ruggiero, the community engagement manager for the BPDA, updated the CNC on about a half dozen projects currently in the planning phases. “201 Rutherford Ave, that’s been in process for a number of years and there’s no tremendous update with that,” said Ruggiero.
He said the BPDA has issued a scoping and determination on the project, which is an 80 to 100 page memo with BPDA and community comments that the developer is asked to respond to. “We don’t do that for all projects, but we do it for the really large ones,” said Ruggiero. The 201 Rutherford Ave. project consists of the development of an approximately 46,000 square foot portion of the Bunker Hill Mall into 240 residential units.
A newer project at 420 Rutherford Avenue is from a developer who wants to construct a lab building, Ruggiero said. “They filed a letter of intent with us, so there’s going to be a robust process on that, it’s just the beginning of the project,” he said. As with other large projects in the community, Ruggiero said there will be an impact advisory group that residents can join to help review the project. “Impact advisory groups help review the project alongside the community and the BPDA,” he said. “You decide what the benefits are, what the mitigation plans are.” The Bunker Hill Housing project should see demolition begin early next year, Ruggiero said. The BPDA also recently released a scoping and determination document for the large-scale One Mystic Avenue project. “It really does amplify everything we learned from the community about that project, it’s too dense, it’s too tall,” Ruggiero said. “We always listen to the community, but I think that we articulated it very well in that memo that we issued, and the process is still open. If anyone feels a certain way about that project, that project is still under review.”
The One Mystic proposal consists of the demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of an approximately 550,000 square foot mixed-use building with nearly 700 residential units, commercial and retail space, and about 240 off-street parking spaces. “Rise is a development team and they filed a letter of intent for a couple of properties in the Inner Belt area of Charlestown, so right on the Somerville border,” said Ruggiero. “It’s probably four or five pieces of land that they have assembled, and they filed a letter of intent. They reached out to us and said we have a development vision and they filed some early visioning plans.” The review process for that project is just underway, and Ruggiero said there will also be an impact advisory group for that development.
Other projects currently in the planning stage include a recently filed letter of intent for 425 Medford St. and the beginning of the requests for proposal process for the former EMS station. Ruggiero said the plan for the EMS station does include a new EMS facility, with housing around and above it. CNC member Elaine Donovan questioned the effectiveness of the BPDA in representing the community of Charlestown. “I’m really, really furious,” she said. “Has there ever been a project that the community disagreed with, that the BPDA backed the community?” Cunha noted that he believed the main area of contention was the first phase of the Hood development, when the CNC wanted developers to hold off until they presented more information about the total development, but the project went ahead anyway. Otherwise, Cunha said, the BPDA has typically been responsive about forwarding the concerns of the community to the developers. “I know that people don’t love the Bunker Hill Housing project, but that was over a five year process, and the first iteration really went nowhere,” said Ruggiero. “I know some people were very frustrated and upset with the result, but that was a very thorough and robust process.” Ruggiero said he knows that there are projects that go through that the community is not happy with, but noted that the BPDA is not the Zoning Board that has the final say on the developments. Several questions were raised about the scope of the PLAN: Charlestown master planning process and if it included all of Charlestown or just the Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue portions of the neighborhood. BPDA officials said PLAN: Charlestown will be a vision for all of Charlestown. In other business, Cunha said he expects a developer looking to build lab space in Sullivan Square will be before the CNC in February or March. He said there are also some smaller developments of 20 units or less on Medford Street that could be before the council in the near future. The next meeting of the CNC is scheduled for Tuesday, Dec. 7 at the Knights of Columbus.
At the last “PLAN” Charlestown meeting, the BPDA stated they “heard” from the community, and shared the slide that 83 respondents commented below. The BPDA survey will be online and open for feedback for two weeks following the workshop through November 22, 2021. PLEASE COMMENT on “PLAN”: Charlestown, please reach out to Jason Ruggiero at email@example.com. 83 respondents versus 2700 signatures for a Charlestown Master Plan procured by WethePeople02129 group (with the efforts of Ann Kelleher, Toby Goldstein and Rosemary Kverick) 2700 signatures to request from Mayor Martin J Walsh that Charlestown have a Master Plan: Charlestown Preservation Society (CPS) President Amanda Zettel and Charlestown Historic Society (CHS) President Julie Hall took the 2700 signatures to a meeting with Mayor Walsh and with the BRA Executive team, requesting a Master Plan for the entire Charlestown community, a true Master Plan.
Julie and Amanda reported after the meeting, that “The Mayor gave us his word” and “We did it.” In less than a day, the BRA announced there was NO Master Plan for Charlestown however they would do (another) study of the Rutherford corridor. The Charlestown community pushed back. The BPDA concocted “PLAN” Charlestown which does NOT include any of the development sites which will impact ALL of Charlestown residents. CPS and CHS support “PLAN” Charlestown despite ALL these $Billions of development, on approximately 100 acres, with thousands of new residents which impact residents on this one square mile are NOT INCLUDED: The Bunker Hill Housing: The largest public housing in New England, slated to expand to 2699 units, on 26 acres, with fifteen massive buildings; with five of the buildings ten stories high will be segregated affordable, elevatored buildings with slivers of greenspace, next to the Tobin Bridge… Segregated housing in a community with tablets of the names of the brave citizens fallen and dead at the Civil War. THIS project is TEN STORIES high replacing 3 stories, yet the development team claims it is integrated in the fabric of our community. It is NOT.
The Bunker Hill Housing:The largest public housing in New England, slated to expand to 2699 units, on 26 acres, with fifteen massive buildings; with five of the buildings ten stories high will be segregated affordable, elevatored buildings with slivers of greenspace, next to the Tobin Bridge… Segregated housing in a community with tablets of the names of the brave citizens fallen and dead at the Civil War.
Home Base, a Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital Program, is dedicated to healing the invisible wounds for Veterans of all eras, Service Members, Military Families and Families of the Fallen through world-class clinical care, wellness, education and research. We strive to foster an inclusive environment, where each person has an experience of feeling valued and respected. All care is provided at no cost to the Veteran or Family Member as thanks from a Grateful Nation.
PLAN: Charlestown Process Creates More Questions as It Moves Forward by Patriot-Bridge Staff • October 28, 2021 • 1 Comment By Adam Swift Put some Charlestown residents and representatives of the Boston Planning & Development Agency in the same room, even if it’s a virtual room, and there’s sure to be some emotions running high. Last week, the PLAN: Charlestown staff held an online forum to update residents on the city planning initiative for the neighborhood and get input on visions and goals for PLAN: Charlestown. Throughout the Zoom meeting, BPDA members were peppered with online chat questions, and later, questioned in person, about the overall framework of the plan and development in Charlestown in general. Some community members did urge patience as the PLAN: Charlestown efforts head into a next phase where there will be a deeper dive into priorities and future scenarios and land use goals for the community. The framework for last week’s meeting was a review of where PLAN: Charlestown currently stands, and beginning to establish a draft planning framework that includes visions, goals, and principles to build upon in the next phase of the process, according to Kelly Sherman, a planner with the BPDA. “In the first beginning part of PLAN: Charlestown we wanted to understand what led us to Charlestown today and what are some of the existing conditions,” said Sherman. “Through our Land Use Through Time and Open Space and Climate Resiliency workshops we talked about what led to and also shaped the physical form of Charlestown that made it the way it is through its history of urban renewal. We also wanted to understand what currently exists today in terms of open space and climate resiliency.” During the planning process thus far, Sherman said the BPDA has asked a series of questions of residents, including the biggest hopes and concerns for the community over the next 10-20 years and what types of investments they would like to see in Charlestown in the coming decades. “This is what we heard back from you, we heard that your hopes were that you wanted improved mobility … you hoped to see a more diverse and equitable community, and an affordable one that allowed more residents to stay,” said Sherman. “You also hoped that there would be more open space that there would be more open space in the area, and that that open space would help deal with flood resiliency, and you hoped that Charlestown kept its current character.” Concerns raised during the process included worsening traffic, the lack of affordable housing for residents, and flooding. BPDA planner Anna Callahan discussed how that information the PLAN: Charlestown staff has gathered so far is being used to draft a vision statement and goals for the planning process. “Using all the feedback we’ve heard … we compiled a draft vision statement and I pulled some key words and phrases we heard from comments,” said Callahan. “We are united, a place where people who grew up here can afford to stay, human-scaled, vibrant, affordable, and we used all the feedback we heard to come up with this draft vision statement.” As presented during the meeting, 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 presented by the BPDA revolved around mobility, homes, climate and environment, and jobs. During a poll asking for initial feedback about the vision statement and goals, the top concerns included a lack of specifics about lowering traffic and creating clear sight lines to the water and Bunker Hill, that the vision statement was not actionable and could lead to approvals of unwanted plans and development, and that it could increase the housing density rate in Charlestown. During the public input portion of the meeting, several residents continue to raise concerns about how the planning process would effectively address overdevelopment in Charlestown. Charlestown resident and former Boston public works director Joanne Massaro asked if the planning process takes into account all the potential development that is currently being considered for Charlestown, as well as the impact development in adjacent communities will have on the community. “I know we are talking about vision statements and goals, but I’m not understanding completely what this document will be,” said Massaro. Charlestown attorney Rosemary Macero wanted to know about the number of residential units the BPDA used to calculate a 2019 regional traffic study, as well as the number of units that have been approved in Charlestown since 2019. “By my count of the projects that are on the drawing board, for the Sullivan Square area, not mentioning the Bunker Hill housing project redevelopment, we’re talking over 1,200 units directly in Sullivan Square,” she said. “I want to know what is going to happen to get that traffic through the bottleneck, because the overpass, which was taken down some years ago, has never been reconstructed and there is a huge traffic bottleneck.” Macero also upbraided the BPDA for not taking the historic nature of Charlestown into account in the development of the plan. “I think it is disgraceful that (the BPDA) has no understanding of what is historic in Charlestown, and we’re having a community meeting about doing a plan for our community, and there has been no effort by your staff, by the people who are on this call, to understand where this historic (district) is,” said Macero. “That is our heritage.” Meghan Richard of the BPDA said she understands that there are existing national register districts in Charlestown. “Much of the original peninsula that is identified on the map that came out of one of the earlier workshops is certainly historic, and none of us have argued that the neighborhood is not historic,” said Richard. However, she added, it is the Boston Landmarks Commission that handles the nomination process for officially designating something either as a local landmark or creating additional national register districts. As the PLAN: Charlestown process moves forward, Callahan said there will be a deeper dive into priorities as consultants are brought onboard to look at issues such as infrastructure, land use scenarios, and preservation tools.
Dear neighbor, We know you have heard a lot from a lot of groups about the potential development on Pier 5. There were 3 proposals by developers and numerous groups taking positions on those proposals. Pier 5 Association Inc. is in favor of making Pier 5 a public park and open space to be enjoyed by the whole Community. We are orgzanized as a not for profit and will be a tax deductible 501(c)3 entity approved by the IRS.
We oppose any effort to put any housing on Pier 5 at all. The group called Restore Pier 5 is aligned with our mission but they are organized as a lobbying group seeking public funds to bring the vision of a public park on Pier 5 into being. We agree with the vision it is just that Pier 5 Association Inc. is proceeding on a parallel track to make the vision of Pier 5 as a public park happen with out without taxpayer money.
All other groups have aligned with developers. Pier 5 Association Inc. is an independent group of your neighbors with the only vision for Pier 5 as a PUBLIC PARK. Please help us make our vision a reality. it is going to take time, money and perseverance. — We anticipate needing in the next 3 months $50,000 and another $150,000 by this time next year. Please help us by donating or having a fundraiser or by helping us with your time. Help us make our vision a reality.
A Public Waterfront Park for the benefit of Charlestown, Boston and its visitors. Restore Pier 5 seeks to preserve Pier 5 in the Charlestown Navy Yard as a fully accessible, environmentally resilient, recreational and educational open public space. Pier 5, an historic structure situated at the Head of Boston Harbor, should not be developed as a restricted private commercial venture. Restore Pier 5 champions its goals by urging our governmental representatives and agencies to provide financial resources to achieve an outcome beneficial to all. We ask for your support.
We Stand For A Resilient Waterfront The waterfront is already bearing the brunt of many of the most dramatic impacts of our changing climate, and plays an outsized role in shaping the public health, safety, and economic wellbeing of surrounding neighborhoods. Future development and infrastructure decisions must prioritize resilience — both to address the impact of climate change and strengthen all of Boston’s neighborhoods that live, work, and play on our waterfronts. Vexing decisions will confront Boston’s future leaders on where to prioritize public funds to address flood pathways and adapt to rising sea levels in the coming years. Multiple neighborhoods and combinations of city and private property will be impacted. The steps taken by Boston’s leaders over the next decade to create resilient, open space on the waterfront will be critical to determining the future livability of the city and to ensure economic, social, and public health resiliency.
A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change This article presents a systematic and comprehensive global stocktake of implemented human adaptation to climate change. The authors screened more than 48 000 articles using machine learning methods and a global network of 126 researchers. Berrang-Ford, L., Siders, A.R., Lesnikowski, A. et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2021). http://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y Topics and subtopics Climate : Adaptation Assessing global progress on human adaptation to climate change is an urgent priority. While the literature on adaptation to climate change is rapidly expanding, little is known about the actual extent of implementation.
The authors systematically screened more than 48 000 articles using machine learning methods and a global network of 126 researchers. The synthesis of the resulting 1682 articles presents a systematic and comprehensive global stocktake of implemented human adaptation to climate change. The results show that documented adaptations were largely fragmented, local, and incremental, with limited evidence of transformational adaptation and negligible evidence of outcomes that reduced risk. The authors identify a need to improve research on global adaptation, and eight priorities for doing so. These are to: assess the effectiveness of adaptation responses enhance understanding of limits to adaptation enable individuals and civil society to adapt include missing places, scholars, and scholarship understand private sector responses improve methods for synthesizing different forms of evidence assess adaptation at different temperature thresholds improve inclusion of timescale and dynamics of responses.
Equitable Resiliency, Progress & Collaboration, Boston Rising Seas Response
Coastal cities around the world are realising forward oriented climate resilience, adaptive Nature Based Urban Planning Solutions. Boston is considered by FEMA to be in “retrograde” in global context.
Please reach out to the leaders and organizations beginning with the emails below. Explain why you oppose privatization, what you would like to see in the pier and the area Tell (or remind:)) the City/Boston Planning and Development Agency of their obligation to maintain public open areas. Explain why you think it is important for the generations to come. Please, don’t wait and send your comments ASAP.
What to do?
Do what we know is right. Use our toolkit to reach out to decision makers Sign the CLF Pledge the Pier5.org Alliance Petition
Regarding the Acoustical (sound), vibrational and air quality field testing for projects such as Pier 5 and Mystic Inlet and afforable housing tower.
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.
Acoustical Impacts of Overdevelopment
Recovering from a Pandemic, open space is critical
Sounds are important for public mental health
Noise reflection and echoing perpetually increase
Building on Pier 5 would compound and perpetuate sound festering problems
Due to increased commercial operations at Pier 6, group visitors have escalated noise decibels and litter
Yeomen (F) (F for female) were the first women to enlist in the United States military. Their service in World War I was made possible by the Naval Act of 1916, which created a naval reserve force. According to the aptly named history of the yeomen (F), Ebbert and Hall’s The First, theFew, the Forgotten, while women were barred from joining the regular Navy, the Naval Reserve force provided an avenue for their participation as “yeomen”—the naval term for clerks.
The yeomen (F) were primarily young women. Many came from large immigrant families. To qualify, yeomen (F) were required to complete four years of high school. Some had also attended college-level secretarial schools.1 To be accepted, the women had to pass not just a physical examination, but a skills test as well. Upon acceptance, their designation was typically listed as “stenographer.” Technically proficient in shorthand, stenographers rapidly wrote dictations using abbreviations and symbols. In reality, though, these Yeoman (F) stenographers were also responsible for typing, bookkeeping, filing, and payroll, which required copious paperwork. Some even branched out to become radio and telephone operators, electricians, and draftsmen. As Ebbert and Hall put it:
The women were enlisted just as men were, doing many of the same jobs, receiving the same pay, subject to the same military regulations, wearing similar uniforms, and required to meet the same standards of performance, and they received naval benefits.2
Despite these significant changes, though, only White women could enter this new program. All Black women were excluded by the Naval Act of 1916, and the armed forces as a whole remained segregated.
During America’s participation in World War I, over 10,000 women served as yeomen (F) across the country. Over 1,000 worked in the First Naval District, which encompassed Boston and the Boston Naval Shipyard (today’s Charlestown Navy Yard). As the Navy increased production to meet the needs of World War I, they hired more workers to build, repair, and supply ships. Even including the 150 women who worked as civilians in the ropewalk, though, the female workforce at the Navy Yard was outnumbered by men roughly 10 to 1.3 Nonetheless, the service of the yeomen (F) at the Boston Naval Shipyard enabled more men—who would otherwise perform these shipyard duties—to enlist and fight overseas.
All yeomen (F) enlistments ended on October 24, 1920, although many had been discharged after the war ended in November 1918. Some of these women, however, continued work at the shipyard as civilian employees through their veterans’ preference on civil service exams.4 At a time when less than 25% of American women worked outside the home, the yeomen (F) stepped out of traditional female roles and joined an emerging trend of women becoming clerical workers. By 1920, almost half the clerical workers and 92% of stenographers in the national workforce were women.5 World War I and yeoman status provided these female military pioneers the opportunity to showcase their skills and education in support of the war effort.
These women were also unique in another way: They were part of the first generation of female voters. In August 1920, the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution took effect, recognizing that women 21 years and older had the right to vote. The 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Before the passage of the 19th amendment, individual states to determined women’s access to the vote. Fifteen states had granted full voting rights to women and twelve states permitted women to vote in presidential elections.6 Massachusetts was not among them, having turned down an amendment to the state constitution for woman suffrage as recently as 1915. In 1879, the Massachusetts Legislature granted women the right to vote for their local school committee members. Some women did register to vote from 1880-1920, knowing that they could only vote for that one office alone.7
What follows are short biographies of 20 yeomen (F) who registered to vote between 1917 and 1921: 19 from Boston and one from a small town nearby. Eight married after the war, while 11 never married and one was a widow when she enlisted and did not remarry. For women who remained single, being a yeomen (F) enabled them to gain experience and an income during and after World War I. They mostly spent their careers doing clerical work and lived much of their lives with family members. They represent some of the first career women and female white-collar wage earners. However, it should be noted that whereas men could use clerical work as a springboard to management positions, these women performed the same tasks, namely stenography, typing and bookkeeping, throughout their working lives.
Blanche Billington registered to vote prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment. While her motivations for registering are unknown, she may have had a desire to vote for school committee members or wished to celebrate adulthood with this new privilege.Billington enlisted in the Naval Reserves in 1918 as a Yeoman 2nd Class when she was 24 years old. She married in 1921 and had three children. In both the 1930 and 1940 censuses, she was not listed as working outside the home. In 1940, her husband was listed as a chauffeur for the City of Boston. As Blanche Towle, her married name, she was, however, very involved in Catholic charities and fundraising for St. Elizabeth’s Hospital.8 Her 1960 obituary listed her as past president of the Kennedy Foundation, and requested donations to it in her name.9
Alice F. Driscoll
The 1920 census listed Driscoll as a “Cashier Bookkeeper” at the Navy Yard. Like Blanche Billington, she also registered to vote in 1917 when she turned 21. In the register of voters, the official listed Driscoll’s occupation as “yoeman” in the Navy Yard, misspelling the position. Driscoll married John Murphy in 1922, and by 1940 she was listed as the mother of four children, ages 6-16. Driscoll is the only known instance of someone registering to vote as a “yoeman,” even if it was spelled incorrectly.
Abigail Collins had deep roots in Charlestown. She lived with her family on Monument Square. Collinswas the daughter of former state representative, Michael W. Collins, who remained active in Democratic politics until his death in 1956.10 Abigail Collins joined the Naval Reserves at the age of 18 in 1917 as Yeoman 1st Class and later was promoted to Chief.11TheBoston Globe stated that both she and her sister were “active in social affairs.” Not surprisingly, Collins, her mother, and a sisterregistered to vote in 1920 at the earliest opportunity. Voter records often showed women, including the yeomen (F), registering with family members and neighbors, accounting for many new voters in their 60s, 70s and even in their 80s.Collins married Frederic Crehan, a World War I army veteran, in 1920 and soon after moved to Maplewood, New Jersey, where she spent the rest of her life.12 Frederic was an educator while Abigail Crehan remained at home and raised two children. Most of the former yeomen (F) remained very near to where they started out, some even living in the same house for all or most of their lives. Collins was an exception; she was the only one of the married women to leave Massachusetts after marriage. She and her husband are both buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Her headstone identifies her as a Chief Yeoman, United Stated Naval Reserve Forces, World War I. Rather than burial in Arlington by virtue of it is clear that she is buried there in her own right.13
Curtis registered to vote on August 20, 1920 at the age of 23. In 1923, she married Edward P. Ryan, who for many years served as chief deputy sheriff of Suffolk Superior Court.14 Mildred Curtis Ryan was not listed in the 1930 or in the 1940 census as employed outside the home, but her obituary stated that she had worked as a medical aide in the Boston School System.15 She was the mother of four children and was extremely active in the American Legion Bessie Edwards Post, made up exclusively of women veterans; she even served as leader of the Post.16 This was a departure from most women prominent in American Legion Posts, who largely remained unmarried.
McCall enlisted as a Yeoman (F) at the age of 21 in May 1917, soon after the United States’ entry into World War I. She previously worked as a stenographer in a downtown Boston department store. In appreciation, the office employees presented her with a pearl and cameo pendant when she left.17 She served as a Chief Yeoman. Even before the passage of the 19th Amendment, McCall entered the political arena when she appeared before the State Legislature in 1919 as part of the lobbying group to secure inclusion of Yeomen (F) into the Bonus Bill that would give veterans a $100 bonus.18 She was an active member of Roxbury Post 44 of the American Legion. In 1936, McCall signed the petition to the United States Congress for a national charter and incorporation of the National Yeomen (F), an organization founded in 1924 to preserve the legacy and history of their unique service.19 In 1922, she resigned as private secretary to Commander Ward K. Wortman, assistant commandant of the First Naval District.20 That same year she married Francis X. McLaughlin, a veteran who had served with the Medical Corps in France.21 The couple and their three children made their home at the Norfolk (Settlement) House Center in Roxbury, where Francis served as physical director for many years.22 McCall registered to vote on August 20, 1920, following in the footsteps of her sister who registered in 1917 at the age of 29.
Beecher registered to vote in 1920 at the age of 21. She enlisted on November 7, 1918 at the age of 19 and served for only five days as a landsman, a trainee status prior to the Yeoman rate, before the war ended on November 11. However, she still worked as a stenographer in the Navy Yard in the 1920 census as a civilian. In 1930, Beecher was employed as a stenographer at the State Street Trust Company until her marriage to John Bride on June 14.23 She lived into her nineties and was survived by three children and 13 grandchildren. She was a life-long member of St. Patrick’s Parish in Roxbury and attended school there.24
Marion T. McEachern
McEachern came from a large family that saw service in World War I. She was one of four sisters who served as Yeoman (F) while her three brothers joined the Army. McEachern was a Chief Yeoman. In the 1920 census, she was listed as a stenographer in a bank living at home with her mother and all her siblings. After her marriage to Edmund G. White about 1923, she no longer appeared on census lists as employed. In the 1930 census, Marion McEachern White was living with her husband, a real estate salesman. By 1940, she and Edmund were joined by a son, George, their only child. McEachern registered to vote in 1920 at age 22 in time to cast her vote in the first presidential race in which Massachusetts women could participate. Other than census records and city directories, she then disappeared from public life until 1967 when she reappeared in a Boston Globe article about the “Yeomenettes” 41st reunion.25 She moved to Cape Cod in the 1980s and died in 1993 at the age of 100. Two of her siblings survived her.26
Glover is the only representative of the Yeomen (F) who registered to vote in 1920 who did not live in the City of Boston. The 1920 voting records of women who lived outside of Boston have thus far been unexplored. Yeomen (F) lived in many towns near Boston including Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, Winthrop, Malden, as well as Wakefield, Salem and Framingham. Undoubtedly, a search in their hometowns would yield more 1920 voters and more unique stories. Glover was born in Boston, and grew up in comfortable circumstances in the small semi-rural town of Wayland, about 16 miles west of Boston. Her family had inherited a farm and had a live-in housekeeper. Records indicate that Glover attended college before enlisting as a Yeoman 1st Class in July 1918 at age 26. In 1920, she was listed as working as a clerk for the Red Cross and later at Harvard University. Glover was an active member of Wayland’s American Legion.27 She also was an organizer of the Little Theatre Group at Wayland’s Vokes Theatre in 1937.28 That same year, Glover married a prominent Boston attorney and a founder of the Greater Boston Community Fund, Charles Rogerson29 Glover devoted much of her time to charitable endeavors.30 She is the only known Yeoman (F) from Wayland.31
Patricia P. Gleason
Patricia Gleason was 35 years old when she registered to vote in 1920. Before and after her enlistment in April 1917 (one of the first to do so), she worked for the City of Boston.32 Gleason was appointed postmaster at the Navy Yard, serving in the postal station in Building 24.33 She was the only woman voter from 1920 in our survey who can be tied to a political party. Gleason was an active member of the Women’s Democratic Club of Massachusetts, as was her sister Minnie.34 She was also active in the Bessie Edwards Post of the American Legion.35 Gleason signed the Congressional petition in 1936 to incorporate and grant a charter to the National Yeomen (F), which had been founded in 1924.36 She is a clear example of an independent career woman, an activist and a proud Yeoman (F), who dedicated her life to service.
Regan enlisted in the Naval Reserves on May 1917 at the age of 33. She served as Yeoman 1st Class and was promoted to Chief. She registered to vote in 1920 along with her 59-year-old mother, Johanna. Regan was a member of the initial 1919 delegation to the Massachusetts State Legislature to lobby for inclusion of Yeomen (F) in the Bonus Bill.37 She was an active member of the Flaherty American Legion Post in East Boston, and later in the all-woman Bessie Edwards Post. Helen spent her working career in the employ of the federal government, mainly in the Veterans Bureau. Her 1975 obituary listed her as living in Winthrop and made note of the fact that she was a “late veteran of World War I.”38 Most obituaries of Yeomen (F) did not mention their naval service.
Ellen E. Kearns
Kearns enlisted May 13, 1918 at the age of 22 and served as Yeoman 3rd Class, later attaining a promotion to Yeoman 2nd Class. She and her mother registered to vote in 1920. In 1944, Kearns and former Yeoman (F) Sara Nolen were sponsors at a double launching of two naval auxiliary barracks ships built at the Boston Navy Yard.39The Quincy Patriot-Ledger reported on August 8:”She [Kearns] was a Yeoman (F) in 1918 and has been a Civil Service employee since. Until her recent promotion a few weeks ago, she had been secretary to the manager of the Boston Navy Yard for 12 years. This was the first time either (she or Sara) has sponsored a ship, although they have handled much paper work relative to new vessels… during the years they have been associated with the navy.”Kearns signed the 1936 petition in support of the incorporation of the National Yeomen (F).40 Kearns died in Weymouth on Jan. 11, 1986, having devoted her life to serving the navy at the Charlestown Navy Yard.41
Josephine L. Anderson
Anderson enlisted at age 19 in May 1918. Her military record says she served as Yeoman 2nd Class. In 1920, Anderson, 21 years old, and her mother, Margaret, 62, both registered soon after the 19th Amendment was ratified. Her sister, Christine, registered in 1922 when she turned 21. Anderson never married and was extremely active for many years in the Fitton Notre Dame Alumnae Association, an East Boston school that she had attended. In 1944, Anderson was among those honored for her long service as a secretary for the War Department.42 She died in 1986 in East Boston, where she had spent her life.
The Boston Globe announced Gillogly’s enlistment on May 21, 1918. She registered to vote on October 8, 1920 at 25 years old. Her father was a Boston fireman.43 Gillogly never married and lived at the same address in Charlestown into the 1940s. She listed her occupation in censuses as a stenographer (1930) and as a typist (1940) at a bank. The few newspaper articles she appeared in were associated with her work in Catholic Charities.44 She died in Winthrop in 1984 and her obituary mentioned her naval service in World War I.45
Marion Hovey Manning
Manning registered to vote on September 30, 1920 at the age of 26. The Boston Globe announced her enlistment on May 15, 191846, but her rank is unknown. She was still at the Navy Yard in 1920. Manning worked as a stenographer in private industry according to the 1930 and 1940 censuses, still living with her parents or a parent. By 1940, she lived in Quincy and by the time of her death in 1986, she lived in Rockland, Massachusetts. A Dorchester native, Manning has proven to be the most elusive of the Yeomen (F) who registered in 1920 and was never mentioned in any other known newspaper records.
Alice G. Driscoll
Alice G. Driscoll (as opposed to Alice F. Driscoll, a 1917 voter) enlisted September 19, 1918 at the age of 20 as a Landsman training for Yeoman. She came from a large family in Charlestown of which she was the youngest; she had five sisters and two brothers. She registered to vote on October 11, 1920. Neither of her parents were living by that time, however. Her mother died when she was an infant and her father in 1919. By 1930, she had moved to Medford, where she resided the rest of her life with two of her sisters. In 1930, she was listed as a telephone operator at a chemical company, and in the 1940 census, she was listed as a bookkeeper. Driscoll signed the petition to the United States Congress in 1936 to confer legal status on the National Yeomen (F), founded in 1924.47 She died in 1969 the “beloved aunt of six nieces and nephews” and presumably the last survivor of eight children.48
Jane A. Carney
Jane Carney was the oldest in a large family with a widowed father and six siblings. Her mother had died in 1913. Even so, she enlisted in July 1918 at age 25, serving as a Yeoman 3rd Class. She spent her career as a secretary. Carney was very active in the Bessie Edwards Post of the American Legion in the 1920s and 1930s and served on the executive committee.49 She registered to vote in November 1921, even though she was old enough to register in 1920. She died in 1982, leaving only two sisters.50
Maney’s enlistment was announced the Boston Globe in May 1918. She registered to vote when she was 21years old in 1920 with her sister Mary. She was active early on with the American Legion Francis G. Kane Post in Dorchester.51 In the 1930s, Maney worked in the entertainment industry on the publicity staff of the Metropolitan Theatre.52 By 1940, she was again employed in government work (it is listed on the census as Department of “Agre Culbire,” most likely Agriculture) and aided the Greek War Relief Association. She lived with her parents in the same house in Paisley Park, Dorchester her whole life. She died a month after her father’s death in 1951, 33 years his junior. At the time of her death, Maney was listed as executive secretary of the Boston store of Bonwit Teller.53
Anna M. McCarthy
McCarthy enlisted as a Yeoman at the age of 24 in May 1918 and served as Yeoman 1st Class.54 In 1920 when she registered to vote, Anna was living with her mother, Margaret, in Charlestown and working as a stenographer at the Navy Yard. She then disappeared from published records for twenty years. In the 1940 census, someone with her name appeared as “sister” to the head of the household; a very common designation as many unmarried former Yeomen (F) lived with family members. A more careful look revealed that all the women in Anna’s household were listed as “sisters” and all with different last names. They all lived at St. Matthew’s Convent in Canton, Massachusetts and were teachers at the religious school. The City Hall in Framingham, Massachusetts was able to confirm that Anna was indeed our Yeoman (F) from her death certificate. She died there in 1986 at the age of 93 at a retirement home for elderly nuns.55
Harney was 21 years old when she registered to vote in 1920; her younger sister, Doris, who also served as a Yeoman (F) registered when she turned 21 years old in 1922. Helen Harney served as a Yeoman 3rd Class, enlisting at the age of 19 in August 1918. She worked in civilian government positions, mostly as a telephone operator for the City of Boston, into the 1940s. During World War II, Harney was back on duty at the Navy Yard, this time as a civilian specialist on property and supply with the United States Army. In 1950, Harney returned to her roots in the Navy and enlisted as a WAVE (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) during the Korean Conflict. That made her the oldest WAVE in the Navy. She was delighted to pass the physical, saying “When you’ve hit 50 and go through a physical that lots of boys and girls can’t pass, it makes you feel pretty proud.”56 Harney stayed in the Navy, serving as master-at-arms at the women’s barracks in Newport, Rhode Island and Bainbridge, Maryland.57 In 1961, she joined about 250 other women veterans marching in President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural parade.58
Daisy M. Pratt Erd
One young widow with children was among the former Yeomen (F) who registered to vote in 1920. Erd was born in Nova Scotia in 1888; her family immigrated to the United States when she was an infant. She was raised in Chicago and became a naturalized American citizen. Erd registered to vote in 1920 at the age of 32 and is considered one of the most distinguished yeomen (F). While widowed by the time she enlisted in April 1917 and mother of two young daughters, Erd was known for her considerable musical talents and leadership abilities.59 According to Lettie Gavin’s American Women in World War I: They Also Served, “Erd was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit ‘War Service,’ not an official Navy award but a personal token of esteem from Captain W.R. Rush, USN, commandant.” At the time of writing, Erd also stands out stands out as being the only Yeoman (F) with a Wikipedia entry, featuring her musical compositions.After the war ended, Erd was the first woman to join the American Legion in July, 1919.60 She soon organized the first women’s post of the American Legion with Mrs. Lila Woodbury Lane, who was a known suffragist. Erd served as Post Commander.61 Known as New England Post 29, with a charter membership of 200, enrollment was open to all women of Greater Boston who had served in the military. By September 1919, membership was about 800. Her American Legion Post was dedicated to finding employment for women, and to obtaining sick benefits for them.62 But first, the location of the clubhouse needed to be resolved. Erd and New England Post 29 were apparently caught up in a turf war between the Bunker Hill Post of the American Legion and the Abraham Lincoln Post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in Charlestown.63 The Bunker Hill Post asserted that the VFW Post was trying to become an American Legion Post through its association with Erd’s Post and “maintained that there was not room in Charlestown for two posts and that Post 29 was there under false pretences [sic].”64 After six months of acrimonious fighting with the State and National American Legion Executive Committees and a trip to Washington, D.C. to plead her case, Erd’s Post had its charter revoked in June 1921.65 The last mention of Erd and her Post appeared in December 1921 in regard to a Christmas party by the now rogue New England Post with her as commander.But Erd had an even bigger fight to wage. She was fighting for her life. During 1922, she was being treated for tuberculosis and, by 1923, Erd was in California in a hospital for disabled veterans. She was later transferred to Asheville, North Carolina where she died on October 24, 1925 at the age of 37. The cause of death was “Tuberculosis contracted during military service.” This dynamic and talented woman was a casualty of the War.66
The women featured in this article were not radicals, and to the best of our knowledge they were not active in the suffrage movement. Yet, on at least two counts, they stand out as pioneers. Foremost, in becoming the first women to enlist in the United States military. Secondly, in registering to vote as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Many of these yeomen (F) came from the poor and lower-middle classes, often with immigrant parents and many siblings. Other yeomen (F) came from means that were more middling, but needed to work as single women. They all enlisted in service to their country in a time of war. After their service, most remained in the same neighborhoods they grew up in, with some living in the same house their entire life. Their willingness to venture into the world and expand their skills and knowledge surely followed them throughout their lives. For those who married and raised families, their experiences undoubtedly enriched the lives of their children and grandchildren and offered them encouragement in new endeavors. For those who remained unmarried, their experiences as yeomen (F) created new avenues for women to pursue earning wages to help their families and themselves. Career women, many spending their lives in government jobs, provided a much larger and diverse world for themselves than the traditional paths of factory or domestic work available in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Regardless of marriage status, many of the women made time for charitable endeavors, and many remained dedicated advocates for veterans throughout their lives. The courage and persistence of the yeomen (F) in pushing the boundaries of women’s achievements, often in the face of adversity, remain an inspiration for all of us, as we embark on a second century of women’s suffrage.
Note: Census records on the yeomen (F) were obtained through https://www.ancestry.com and https://www.familysearch.org/en/ by inputting each individual name into their search engines. Family Search also has a number of veterans’ records and enlistment scans. All Boston Globe articles were obtained at https://bostonglobe.newspapers.com/search/#.Voter Registration information was gathered from the Voter Registration Lists found in the City of Boston Archives in West Roxbury (with the exception of Frances Glover, of Wayland).Contributed by Jane Sciacca, Historical Researcher
Girls’ High School of Boston started offering commercial courses similar to ones offered by private business schools. By 1909, the commercial curriculum was the largest department in the school: surpassing the Normal School curriculum on which the school was founded in 1851 (Olive B. White, “Condensed from: Centennial History if the Girls’ High School of Boston,” Girls’ High School of Boston Alumnae, IMPACT, 2017, https://ghsalumnaeboston.org/history).
Jean Ebbert and Marie-Beth Hall, The First, The Few, The Forgotten (Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2002), 1-10.
Labor rolls totaled 4500 in June 1917, 6600 in January 1918, and 10,000 in mid-July 1918. The armistice in November did not halt the trend, and February 11, 1919, the greatest workforce yet in the yard’s history, 12,844, reported.” (Frederick R. Black, Charlestown Navy Yard, 1890-1973, Cultural Resources Management Study no. 20, Vol I of III, National Park Service1988. P. 336).
Ebbert and Hall, The First, The Few, The Forgotten, 1-10.
“Bunker Hill District,” The Boston Globe, Sept. 11, 1923, p. 8.
“Mrs. Ryan, 70, of Brighton, A.L. Leader,” The Boston Globe, Apr. 23, 1967, p. 79.
“Bessie Edwards Post Annual Bridge Party, The Boston Globe, Oct. 24, 1941, p. 18.
“Roxbury District,” The Boston Globe, May 16, 1917, p. 6.
“Yeomen(F) Want To Be Included In Bounty,” The Boston Globe, May 26, 1919, p. 6.
Ebbert and Hall, The First, The Few, The Forgotten, 112-122 and 127-8. Gertrude French Howalt was responsible for arranging that the memorabilia be housed at the Smithsonian Institution upon disbanding in 1985.
[iv] “Navy Yard Notes,” The Boston Globe, June 9, 1922, p. 4.
“Lt. McLaughlin Weds Miss Esther McCall,” The Boston Globe, June 15, 1922, p. 15.
“Francis McLaughlin, 80, Roxbury Youth Worker (Dies),” The Boston Globe, June 5, 1974, p. 44.
“Miss Helen M. Beecher Bride of John L. Bride,” The Boston Globe, June 14, 1930, p. 13.
“Helen Bride Obituary,” The Boston Globe, May 1, 1991, p. 6.
“They Went Too Near the Water,” The Boston Globe, Aug. 23, 1967, p. 16.
[ii] “Marion T. White Obituary,” The Boston Globe, July 24, 1993, p. 70.
“Wayland Election,” The Boston Herald, Aug. 14, 1919.
“Little Theater Group Organized in Wayland,” The Boston Globe, Apr. 5, 1937, p. 2.
“Father, Son, and Daughter in Rogerson Family Engaged,” The Boston Globe, May 3, 1937, p. 3.
“War Time Society” (photo), The Boston Globe, Feb. 27, 1944, p. 2.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Boston Navy Yard (now known as Charlestown Navy Yard) entered its second century of service by embarking on its first major expansion since the Civil War. This growth was in line with the goals of President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, which wanted the United States Navy to expand and modernize, heralding the emergence of America as a world power. In Boston several new buildings and a second dry dock were built to meet the demands of the growing fleet that it served.
Shortly after the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared that the United States would remain neutral. It would become the navy’s job to protect the nation’s neutrality at sea and at home by stationing destroyers at Boston Navy Yard.
In the aftermath of the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915, President Wilson sided with the growing number of advocates of military preparedness who sought to protect America’s interests at home and abroad. As part of the preparedness movement, Wilson called upon Congress to authorize the construction of over 150 warships. With the passage of the Naval Act of 1916, the Boston Navy Yard prepared for an increase in the number of ships built, outfitted, and repaired at the facility.
Throughout the war years, many of the yard’s older buildings were renovated or replaced, while several new buildings were erected, including a massive general storehouse. An inclined shipway, where vessels could be built and launched, was constructed and towering hammerhead cranes were erected after the Navy Department selected the Boston Navy Yard for the construction of the first ship specifically built to carry supplies and provisions for overseas fleet replenishment. For the repair of smaller vessels, a marine railway was constructed between the yard’s two dry docks.
As preparations intensified, the number of workers at the yard increased dramatically, growing from approximately 2,500 to 4,400 skilled and unskilled laborers by 1917. This workforce would come to include a number of women who filled a variety of roles from clerical workers to manufacturing assistants in the yard’s ropewalk, which had greatly increased its production of cordage for the navy.
By January 1917, the land war in Europe had reached a stalemate, prompting Germany to resume its campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare in an attempt to cut off Britain’s supply lines and starve the country into submission before America joined the war. After the sinking of several American vessels with loss of life, the United States declared war on Germany on April 6 and rapidly began to mobilize its forces.
Immediately following the declaration of war, the United States Navy ordered Destroyer Division 8 to assemble at the Boston Navy Yard and prepare for deployment to European waters. Six destroyers departed Boston on April 24, 1917 and arrived at the British naval base at Queenstown (Cobh), Ireland on May 4. A second group of destroyers left Boston on May 7 to join in escort duties and patrol for German U-boats. Thereafter, the port of Boston and its navy yard would become one of the principal points of departure for troops, arms, and supplies to Britain and France.
Though the Boston Navy Yard would build a number of support ships during the war, the Navy specifically assigned the yard the task of repairing warships and support vessels. Equally important, the yard oversaw the outfitting and commissioning of a steady stream of warships built by private shipbuilding concerns. These would include destroyers and submarines constructed at Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation’s Fore River Shipyard and its Victory Destroyer Plant, both located in Quincy, Massachusetts.
In addition to readying and repairing warships, workers at the Boston Navy Yard also outfitted ships of the American Merchant Marine with armament provided by the federal government. Boston also converted, fitted out, and commissioned former cargo carrying merchantmen and passenger vessels that had been purchased or leased by the Navy. The smaller and swifter vessels were converted for use in anti-submarine warfare and coastal patrol, while larger vessels were converted for use in transporting troops and carrying cargo. Perhaps the most complicated conversion work at the yard involved five German passenger ships that had been seized in American ports by the United States government after the declaration of war. Prior to the vessel’s seizure, their crews had sabotaged the ship’s’ engines, necessitating extensive repairs before these vessels could be transformed into transports to carry troops and supplies from the United States to France.
Charlestown Navy Yard 1800-1842, Vols. 1 & 2: Ed Bearss, Boston National Historical Park, 1984.
Charlestown Navy Yard, NPS Handbook 152, US National Park Service, 1995.
Charlestown Navy Yard Historic Resource Study Vols. 1-3: Stephen P. Carlson, Boston National Historical Park, 2010.
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).
Charlestown Navy Yard Boston National Historical Park, Massachusetts Produced by the Division of Publications National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC
Author: National Park Service Title: Charlestown Navy Yard Boston National Historical Park, Massachusetts Release Date: June 30, 2017 [EBook #55010] Project Gutenberg’s Charlestown Navy Yard, by National Park Service
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org
The Charlestown Navy Yard, a Boston National Historical Park, Massachusetts National Park Handbook was produced by the Division of Publications National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC in 2017.
The U.S. government established Charlestown Navy Yard as the newly-formed republic was meeting early challenges to its merchant shipping. In the decade after gaining independence, the young nation kept no standing navy. But continuing raids on U.S. commerce by Barbary pirates and French privateers in the 1790s spurred Congress to authorize the construction of new warships.
Realizing that existing private shipyards were inadequate for the increasingly ambitious shipbuilding program, the Secretary of the Navy established in 1800-1801 six federal yards to build, outfit, repair, and supply naval vessels. These facilities at Portsmouth, N.H.; Boston; New York; Philadelphia; Washington, D.C.; and Norfolk, Va., were the nucleus of the naval shipyard system. Except during the Civil War, they launched most of the Navy’s vessels until the advent of steel hulls in the 1880s, when private yards began building them in greater numbers.
As with the first six, later naval shipyards were sometimes created to fill an immediate military need.
The War of 1812, for instance, prompted the building of the two Great Lakes yards. The Mound City yard was established during the Civil War, strategically located near the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to build and repair Union gunboats. Although U.S. naval vessels are today built in private shipyards, four navy yards still actively serve the fleet.
Growth of the Yard
When Captain William Bainbridge arrived in Boston aboard U.S.S. (United States Ship) Constitution in February 1813, he had reason to be satisfied. While the U.S. Army faltered early in the War of 1812, a string of naval victories over British ships was boosting public confidence. Two months earlier, the big frigate commanded by Bainbridge had engaged H.M.S. (His Majesty’s Ship) Java off the coast of Brazil. Java was the faster ship, but Constitution had heavier guns. By skillful maneuvering. Constitution kept them trained on the British frigate, pounding Java with broadsides until its colors came down.
Crew and commander were met with parades in Boston, but Bainbridge had little time to enjoy the acclaim. He was immediately faced with a task that, if not as exciting as a sea battle, was nevertheless formidable. He had temporarily relinquished command of the Charlestown Navy Yard when he sailed on Constitution.
While he was gone, Navy Secretary Paul Hamilton charged the yard with building one of the nation’s first ships-of-the-line—the battleships of their day. As things now stood, that was an impossibility: Charlestown simply lacked the facilities for such an undertaking.
Bainbridge, who at 37 had already seen extensive naval action and been imprisoned by Barbary pirates, wrote soon after becoming commandant in 1812: “No period of my naval life has been more industrious or fatiguing.” He was shorthanded and hampered by bad weather, conditions that must have sorely tested the endurance of a man with his temperament: aggressive, 12volatile, not noted for his patience. When he took command of the Charlestown yard, Bainbridge pressed the Washington bureaucracy to authorize improvements to a facility that suffered, in his words, from “mismanagement and neglect.”
Today part of the land formerly of this navy yard (about 30 acres or 120,000 square meters) is controlled by the Boston National Historical Park under the administration of the United States National Park Service.
ww2dbaseThe Charlestown Navy Yard was originally established in 1801, and it launched the very first domestically built warship, USS Independence. By the turn of the century, expanded to two drydocks, the facility had been renamed Boston Navy Yard. Boston Navy Yard built several US and British destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates, landing ships, and other small warships, and it also served as a major repair yard for damaged ships. After the war, she saw service modernizing WW2-era ships during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, but its relative importance diminished due to its location, far away from the conflict zones in Asia. Boston Navy Yard was closed in 1974. Today part of the land formerly of this navy yard (about 30 acres or 120,000 square meters) is controlled by the Boston National Historical Park under the administration of the United States National Park Service. Now known by its original name, Charlestown Navy Yard hosts the museum ships USS Constitution and Cassin Young, and it displays the bell of USS Boston.
ww2dbase.com Source: Wikipedia
At the turn of the 20th century, the Boston Navy Yard entered its second century of service by embarking on its first major expansion since the Civil War.
This growth was in line with the goals of President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, which wanted the United States Navy to expand and modernize, heralding the emergence of America as a world power.
In Boston several new buildings and a second dry dock were built to meet the demands of the growing fleet that it served.
The Charlestown Navy Yard was originally established in 1801, and it launched the very first domestically built warship, USS Independence.
By the turn of the century, expanded to two drydocks, the facility had been renamed Boston Navy Yard.
Boston Navy Yard built several US and British destroyers, destroyer escorts, frigates, landing ships, and other small warships, and it also served as a major repair yard for damaged ships.
After the war, she saw service modernizing WW2-era ships during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, but its relative importance diminished due to its location, far away from the conflict zones in Asia. Boston Navy Yard was closed in 1974.
The Boston Navy Yard hosts the museum ships USS Constitution and Cassin Young, and it displays the bell of USS Boston.
In 1932, the Department of the Navy designated the Boston (Charlestown) Navy Yard to be the building site for destroyers.
Two years later, the USS McDonough (DD-351) slid down the ways, marking the first major ship launching at the yard in over a decade.
The launch of McDonough ushered in the most productive period of ship construction in the history of the Navy Yard.
By September 1, 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the Boston Navy Yard had completed and commissioned six new destroyers. Furthermore, several other destroyers and auxiliary vessels were in various stages of construction across the facility. Though Germany’s invasion of Poland sparked war in Europe, the United States remained neutral.
The enemy has struck a savage treacherous blow. We are at war, all of us! There is no time now for disputes or delay of any kind. We must have ships and more ships, guns and more guns, men and more men – faster and faster, there is no time to lose. The Navy must lead the way. Speed up – It is your Navy and your nation!
by Polly Kienle, Park Guide
This is the desperate message that Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy, sent out to all the shipbuilding facilities of the U.S. Navy on December 10, 1941, just three days after the surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor thrust the United States into the Second World War.
The 17,000 civilian employees on the Boston Navy Yard’s 1941 rolls were not numerous enough for the facility to increase building, converting, and repairing ships to levels demanded by wartime needs. In addition, thousands of these men were expected to leave civilian life and join the Armed Forces. To get the work done, Boston Navy Yard turned to people who would not have had a chance at being hired in peacetime: women; African-American men; retirees; men without specialized training; disabled men. These people stepped up to the task: by mid-1943, over 50,000 civilians came to work each day at the shops, offices, piers, and dry docks of the Boston Navy Yard and its annexes in Chelsea, South Boston, and East Boston.
Between 15 and 20% of these workers were women. Numbering over 8,000 in 1943, these women were thrown into roles that the shipbuilding world had not previously opened to them. Though some of them worked in clerical positions that had been deemed acceptable for women since World War I, the great majority became welders and electricians, machine operators and pipefitters, mechanics and painters. Kept separate from Navy personnel berthed on ships in repair or overhaul, women took their tools to the hulls of new ships under construction or spent their workdays in one of the many specialized shops that produced ship components.
The Shipyard News, Boston Navy Yard’s newspaper, featured women of all backgrounds in its wartime pages: college-educated women; girls fresh from high school; married women; grandmothers; women with husbands or brothers fighting overseas. As their face smile up at us from the newsprint, we should not overlook the great challenges the women themselves recounted when interviewed about their Navy Yard experience. They worked in extreme conditions with dangerous tools and materials, sometimes alongside male employees who did not believe that they were up to the job. When they returned home after their 8- or 9-hour shift, they were expected to shop, cook and clean, care for children, and attend to other duties of women in the home. They were a proud group, taking home excellent wages and determined to contribute to the home front war effort.
By 1945, the wartime shipbuilding effort had provided the U.S. Navy with the fleet it needed for victory in the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. Women had played a significant role in Boston Navy Yard’s leading place in that effort. Now, however, their time as shipbuilders was over. As production was reduced at Boston, more and more women were released from the workforce. Though they were gone from the pier and the shops, they carried their experiences with them into the peacetime world. Within two decades, these women and their daughters would create a new women’s movement that would fight for American women’s right to join the workforce in any capacity they desired.
Sources & Further Reading:
Frederick Black, Charlestown Navy Yard 1890-1973, Volume II, Cultural Resources Management Study No. 20. (Boston: Boston National Historical Park, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988).
Boston National Historical Park. Boston Naval Shipyard Oral History Project.
Stephen P. Carlson. Charlestown Navy Yard: Historic Resource Study, Vols. I-III (Boston: Division of Cultural Resources, Boston National Historical Park, National Park Service, 2010).
Maureen Honey. Creating Rosie the Riveter: class, gender, and propaganda during World War II (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1985).
George O. Mansfield. Historical Review: Boston Naval Shipyard – formerly – Boston Navy Yard 1938-1957 (Boston: Boston Naval Shipyard Administrative Department, 1957).
In spring of 1917, more than two years before the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote, a radical transformation was taking place at the Boston Navy Yard. The US Navy adopted a radical enlistment policy that opened its clerical ranks to educated, white women. Parallel to this national watershed, the Boston Navy Yard (now known as the Charlestown Navy Yard) hired civilian women as unskilled laborers for the first time in its history.
In January of 1917, the quarter-mile long granite ropewalk at the Boston Navy Yard was producing rope and cable for the entire US Navy using hand-powered, 19th-century machinery. By December of 1918, the ropewalk, the only government-owned plant that manufactured the various kinds of rope used in the Navy, had sped up production to meet national demand for its products. As the Yard newspaper, The Salvo, proudly related, 232 steam-run spindles now manufactured yarn from Manila or American hemp, long enough to stretch from the Earth to the Moon and back again.
The coming of industrial-era machinery to the ropewalk not only increased production, but opened up light manufacturing jobs to unskilled laborers. The Boston Navy Yard quietly broke with trade tradition and brought on 150 women to fill these new positions at the ropewalk facility. The ropewalk was the Yard’s only plant to employ women in industrial roles during World War I.
At present, we know very little about these women. It is possible that they, like many new hires of the time, were encouraged to apply for their positions by friends and relatives who already worked at the Navy Yard. The law stated that they would be paid the same rate as male unskilled laborers, $2.24 per day, increasing to $4.32 by late 1818.
Women also occupied skilled roles at the Boston Navy Yard during World War I. On March 21, 1917, all Naval District commanders were called on by Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels to open enlistment for the Yeoman (clerical) grade to women, who would be referred to as Yeoman (F). White collar work was already a boom field by the beginning of the twentieth century, as administrative, communications, and clerical functions became increasingly important in both industry and governance. With the United States on the brink of war, US Navy planners knew that their male clerks of the Yeoman rating would be sent to sea with the fleet. To Secretary Daniels’ mind, inviting women with the right education and experience to enlist in the Naval Reserve was the solution. However, Secretary Daniels made it clear that no African American women were to become Yeomen (F); one case of an African-American woman being denied the chance to enlist in Boston was recorded in a history of the First Naval District.
At the Boston Navy Yard, Commander William R. Rush was building his administrative staff to run a facility that would soon triple its workforce. As more experienced male Yeomen were sent off to sea, educated Yeomen (F) with job experience were a welcome addition to the team with its relentless 6-day, 60-hour workweek.
Many Boston women rushed to enlist for duty as Yeomen (F), like Emily Steele who, upon her enlistment in March 1917, was immediately designated secretary to the First Naval District commander and assumed duties the next day. Many of the new Yeoman (F) came from families with deep ties to the US Navy. All were high school graduates, some had attended clerical training schools, some were college graduates, and some offered years of valuable work experience. In March 1918, Boston enlistment for Yeomen (F) was capped, as supply had come to exceed demand. Throughout the war, Boston newspapers reported on charity events, uniform and deportment competitions, war bond drives, sporting events, all coordinated by Yeomen (F) at the Navy Yard. A core team of these women, associated with the Commandant’s office, became Head Yeomen (F) and took on leadership functions in many of these activities.
Boston Navy Yard quickly fitted out an office space “for a corps of a dozen young women, who will be enrolled as soon as they pass the examination.” By May 1918, several hundred women served as Yeomen (F) in offices at Boston Navy Yard and other U.S. Navy offices in Boston. Commander Rush singled them out for praise on the occasion of the funeral of Capt. Samuel Nicholson, the first commandant of the Boston Navy Yard, saying that “their devotion to duty, zeal and efficiency is beyond praise.”
Massachusetts Chapter 91 shoreline regulations seek to preserve and enhance our tidal wetlands and enhance our aquatic environments while fostering planned community growth and vitality.
Regarding tidal wetlands under pier 5. The water is deep. As is typical of deep water ports, the shoreline is vertical not estuarian. The 100 foot from shoreline intertidal zone definition would only extend a short distance out the pier itself. However if considers that the dense placed piles themselves represent an intertidal aquatic environment that has flourished undisturbed for the past 50 years, this may explain why city dwelling fisherman come daily to this location on foot and bicycle carrying buckets and rods to fish the waters near the pier. It has teaming with marine life for many years now. The steel piles themselves from a unique and dense human constructed intertidal zone reef structure that is nourishing marine life throughout the harbor.
It may be that the darkness at the center of the pier limits the biological value of the “Pier 5 reef” and would suggest that opening light windows down its center so that the marine life will pass through to the center—(analogous to the fish windows that were placed under the middle of the Zakim Bridge and are visible form Paul Revere Park.) might enhance its aquatic value.—-I would think that preservation of the reef structure, selective reinforcement to provide safety for pedestrian use especially around the perimeter and perhaps various open areas and under a small and architecturally compelling weather protected space could provide artistic, educational, environmental and coastal resiliency benefits and perhaps allow for useful expansion of courageous as well. Perhaps in an age of changing tides and pending ocean encroachment, a wheel chair accessible glass Ramp –“tidal tube” could extend down into the intertidal zone and back up allowing visitors to walk down into the intertidal zone.
Visitors could observe the reef structure and the complex marine life directly. This would be a living underwater and intertidal exhibit that would change daily. Such a concept could also allow daily observations of the high and low tide lines as they fluctuate with moon, the winds and melting icepacks and allow for a living historical demonstration of the pier itself and its unique wartime construction.
Funds for preservation of the pier and Reef and its structural reinforcement to allow for light service duty as an educational and living outdoor natural exhibit as part of a coastal resiliency demonstration should be secured and the pier preserved as a great community asset.
Certainly, Imagine Boston 2030as an updated city masterplan has revised the visions originally articulated in earlier municipal harbor plans and its guidance is now consistent with chapter 91 concepts regarding the tidal water sheet. I would argue the vison of Imagine Boston 2030 should drive the future of this unique and special community place.
Applying letter of the law compliance achieved by the weaseling through inconsistent regulatory language to implementplans that are inconsistent with the community will and the best interest of the people of Boston, should not be taken countenanced. Let us imagine creative solutions for the revitalization of pier 5 and celebrate its value as an aquatic sanctuary and educational resource on a beautiful and dynamic activated waterfront.
Cities are urgently implementing safeguards against the threats posed by climate change and sea level rise. We hope that the City and State will help the BPDA do the right thing. All together we can advance adaptive urban resilience. Boston should be inspired by East Boston and New York City. NYC, decided that open parks and activities for the public are more important than buildings blocking the community views and experience.
Pier 5 plays a significant role in both ecological and historic lessons of harbor and the Navy Yard.
Discontinuity between East and Boston. Boston should be inspired by East Boston and New York City. East Boston could be home to an iconic new park by The Trustees that seamlessly integrates into the Piers Park complex, honors its unique location on the Boston Harbor, and serves the East Boston community’s expressed needs. Exposed piers, rocky shoreline, and salt marsh would complement open, flexible spaces for active play and community programming—from movie screenings to gardening classes. The park would provide natural protection against sea-level rise and flooding. NYC, decided that open parks and activities for the public are more important than buildings blocking the community views and experience.
Resilient climate-ready infrastructure with consolidated proactive investment and solutions.
Assuring Climate Resiliency, preservation of marine environment, view sheds, marine life, birds, coral reefs, air quality for the best interest of all. Boston is behind leading global Resilient Cities.
Boston must ensure that Pier 5 is developed into greenspace, a living shoreline, a climate berm and waterfront park for everyone. Boston should Act on valuable existing plans for all to enjoy. It would be a landmark event and bolster Boston’s direction and face. For instance, Scape, Natural Based Solutions.
East Boston could be home to an iconic new park by The Trustees that seamlessly integrates into the Piers Park complex, honors its unique location on the Boston Harbor, and serves the East Boston community’s expressed needs. Exposed piers, rocky shoreline, and salt marsh would complement open, flexible spaces for active play and community programming—from movie screenings to gardening classes. The park would provide natural protection against sea-level rise and flooding. For instance, Scape, Natural Based Solutions. At the expense of the BPDA an independent, non-repeat contractor evaluation be done. 2010 Greenway District Planning Study Use and Development Guidelines.
The National Parks Service (NPS), in consultation with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), is considering new approaches to leverage existing assets and engage the private sector to strengthen its real property portfolio. NPS/GSA are exploring potential strategies that will foster private sector involvement to promote more effective utilization of certain real property located at the Charlestown Navy Yard (CNY) in Charlestown, Massachusetts and 15 State Street, Boston, MA.
Massachusetts State Historic Presentation Office (SHPO), Commercial Tenants. For more information, please contact Kevin Legare at firstname.lastname@example.org/cny.
BOSTON HARBOR NOW WAS FOUNDED IN 2016 FROM THE MERGER OF TWO NON-PROFITS
Our sole focus is realizing Boston Harbor’s potential to benefit our city and region. Everything we do involves partnering with public agencies, community leaders, businesses and other non-profits.
Overview Boston Harbor Now is working to re-establish Boston as one of the world’s truly great coastal cities. Everything we do is in partnership with public agencies, communities and private and non-profit partners.
Boston Harbor Now is working to re-establish Boston as one of the world’s truly great coastal cities. Everything we do is in partnership with public agencies, communities and private and non-profit partners.
We encourage people to explore Boston’s waterfront and Islands through promoting and hosting hundreds of free and low-cost recreational, cultural and social events.
We partner with the Mass Department of Transportation to develop and advance a Boston Harbor-wide water transportation plan for expanded ferry service.
We co-manage and improve visitor experiences of the Boston Harbor Islands National and State Park.
We partner with the City of Boston and waterfront communities to prepare for sea level rise while promoting outstanding waterfront open space.
We support investment and innovation in Boston’s working port to better support our 21st Century maritime economy.
With private development threatening to wall off the harbor to all but the wealthy. With climate change endangering public health and safety. We must step up to protect Boston Harbor again.
CLF in Action The public’s right to access Boston Harbor and waterfront land is enshrined in the Public Waterfront Act, also known as Chapter 91. But in recent years, private developers and their political allies have ignored the commitments required under the law, putting the waterfront at risk of becoming an exclusive enclave for the wealthy. At the same time, they have neglected to make new buildings resilient in the face of rising waters and extreme weather caused by climate change.
CLF is committed to protecting Boston Harbor – the People’s Harbor – from these threats. We are moving forward a vision in which the public’s right to access the harbor is secure and new developments advance public safety with climate-prepared structures. This vision not only benefits Boston, but can become a model for Massachusetts, New England, and beyond. But there’s more work to be done in the courts, in City Hall, and in the halls of the State House. We need friends and supporters to stand with us. Please join our fight by signing our pledge to protect the People’s Harbor today and check out our toolkit for other ways that you can get involved.
The Development Review Department is led by the Director and Deputy Director of Development Review and is staffed by a team of Project Managers. Project Managers take the lead role in overseeing and coordinating the development review process for all projects that meet the threshold for either Small or Large Project Review.For more information, please contact Jonathan Greeley, Director of Development Review.
This webinar is the second in a three-part series on nature-based solutions (NBS) for watersheds. The webinar series is part of the Benefit Accounting of Nature-Based Solutions for Watersheds project, being undertaken by the United Nations Global Compact CEO Water Mandate, Pacific Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Danone, and LimnoTech. This webinar will showcase how the method developed by the project team aligns with the outcomes and outputs from existing corporate NBS case studies across forest and wetland habitats.
Calculating NBS ROI (moral, resilient, long term returns)
We’re creating neighborhood solutions to coastal flooding from sea level rise and coastal storms. Implementation of Climate Ready CharlestownThis Climate Ready Boston program identified locations in Charlestown that face risks from coastal flooding and sea level rise. In 2017, we developed coastal resilience solutions for Sullivan Square, the Neck and Rutherford Avenue. We are currently leading a study to understand risk and identify near- and long-term solutions for areas of the neighborhood that weren’t covered in 2017.
This plan envisions a city where all residents have better and more equitable travel choices. We are working to build efficient transportation networks that create economic opportunity. We’ll also take much needed steps to prepare for climate change.
By putting this plan in place, people will be able to access all parts of Boston safely and reliably. This is true whether you travel on foot, by public transportation, by bike, or by car.
in consultation with the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), is considering new approaches to leverage existing assets and engage the private sector to strengthen its real property portfolio. NPS/GSA are exploring potential strategies that will foster private sector involvement to promote more effective utilization of certain real property located at the Charlestown Navy Yard (CNY) in Charlestown, Massachusetts and 15 State Street, Boston, MA.
The NPS along with its partners, the U. S. Navy and the USS Constitution Museum, have collaborated on a master development strategy for the CNY. To support this strategy, NPS is seeking to improve the efficiency of park operations and address deferred maintenance challenges by activating underutilized assets using its leasing authorities.
Social justice needs were being met even during the 1970s Economic Recession.
One of the only jobs in 1970s Boston was the Modernization Program for Public Housing in Charlestown – Phase 1; The goal was to re-establish these, then 30 year old, 1100 units as a substantial residential environment. Phase 1 was to renovate all of the bathrooms and kitchens; later phases were to be recreation areas, landscaping and community facilities. Ecodesign, Inc., my then fledgling architectural firm and an early Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE), was awarded Phase 1.
This complicated job required us to work closely with the resident-elected, fully-empowered Task Force, do detailed site surveys, catalogue intolerable conditions of each unit, determine the common needs and design economical solutions to these problems. For example, in the 1970s Boston Housing projects the bathrooms did not have showers. As a solution, we designed a fixture easily installed in tub corners — filling this need was greatly appreciated by the residents who called it “Shower Tower Power” (in true 60s style)!
Another Housing need was, and still is, recreation and open space. Some of the Boston housing projects had some open space, some even had trees. When surveying Bunker Hill Housing, I remember the sense that the sea was so near by, but the U. S. Navy Yard waterfront was not available to the public in the early 1970s. Today, there is still the need for open space, but TODAY there is a unique opportunity for all the public to have real open space access to the Charlestown Waterfront at the Head of the Boston Harbor- Pier 5.
The recent Superior Court decision on the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) lawsuit has brought to light how illegal approvals of the Municipal Harbor Plan (MHP) process (and in Charlestown the manipulation of an obsolete and expired Navy Yard MHP) was used by the BRA/BPDA to block the promise of Chapter 91 and the Big Dig to “provide public access to the sea”.
With public access blocked, these improper BRA/BPDA planning techniques were then used to give that waterfront access, instead, to powerful developers for access to only a very few residents. After public waterfront advocates have battled for a quarter century and the City of Boston has endured the Big Dig, this CLF decision now offers a chance to reclaim this Waterfront Assess Public Asset for all the People!
The social justice of the need for true open space for all has never been more clear than during this time of Pandemics. Waterfront activities such as that offered to the children of Boston by the world-renown Courageous Sailing Center should not be curtailed by continuing improper development of the waterfront. Rather than being impeded, outdoor learning and open space education opportunities should be expanded and maximized for many children. Such waterfront sites should not be made residences for only a few affluent or well-connected people. Legitimate, usable open space for education and recreation programs must not be “scraps of left over land” or “unreachable pretend gardens” or other Trojan Horse offerings.
COVID has made us acutely aware of the need for recreational open space. High levels of asthma in Charlestown residents makes us value the greenspace to breathe clean air. Numerous studies prove inadequate greenspace is a social and environmental injustice that burdens affordable housing residents.
In Boston, 20% of all housing units are income-restricted. The Report from the City of Boston on Income-Restricted Housing (2019) shows that of Housing Units that are Income-restricted, the neighborhoods with the highest percentage include Charlestown at 3rd highest with 25% (and growing exponentially). Of Rental Only Properties, where Boston has 27% of all rental units being income-restricted, Charlestown has 42% income restricted. That includes Bunker Hill Housing where the BPDA is now trying to remove 340 beautiful mature trees from their open space. Charlestown, perhaps more than any other Boston Harbor area, needs and deserves the Public Asset that is Waterfront Access.
We also need Climate Justice with responsible solutions to achieve resilient open space, environmental education and the chance to enjoy the Harbor now cleaned by our taxes. We need to demand access to unique historic sites like the Head of Boston Harbor at Pier 5 — a special place of rare original harbor edge of the Charlestown Peninsula where Paul Revere started his ride, Bunker/Breeds Hill battle was fought, 1800s cannons were set, WWI and WWII ships were readied, the gateway to our Harbor …but where the BPDA now conspires to take this public amenity for privatized development.
“Waterfront Access is a Public Asset”. Charlestown/Boston public and the residents of all Boston Public Housing deserve clear, equitable access to the worth of the waterfront —their right granted by the MA Public Waterfront Act, by the ancient Chapter 91 law and by the Promise of the Big Dig.
We need our Leaders to use their power to return the Public Asset that is Access to Our Waterfront!
Please understand what is at by Privatization. Learn more at Pier5.org — Sherrie S. Cutler, A.I.A. sscutler@ECODESIGN.com 970-948-8822
Please send this PDF to decision makers, family, friends, institutions: PDF Link template to send to leaders whose contact information provided below. Content suggestions – Copy & Paste to your letter
Legal, Environmental, Climate resilience concerns: Objections to the BPDA Charlestown Navy Yard Pier 5 Development Proposals
Re: Objections to the BPDA Charlestown Navy Yard Pier 5 Development Proposals
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please accept this letter to express my strenuous objection to the 3 proposals currently being considered by the BPDA for Charlestown Navy Yard Pier 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pier 5’) RFP. The objections are based upon the environmental concerns including impact on tidal lands of the Commonwealth and virtual elimination of public use of Pier 5 for marine dependent uses; damage to adjacent structures and uses, over densification of residential uses creating life safety access hazards to development and area residents, lack of infrastructure for development for residential services including trash, potable and waste water, parking and transportation and deliberate mischaracterization of ‘floating homes’ as a marine based use, which makes a sham of c.91, avoids real estate taxation and other zoning limitations which would otherwise strictly apply, only to create a new income source for the BPDA and to cover for its 40 year neglect of Pier 5.
Issues are as follows:
To Whom it May Concern,
Environmental 1. Rising Sea Level impacts on Pier 5, including severe exposure to winter storm conditions. 2. Limitations on the use of Tidal lands under M.G.L.c. 91 for water dependent uses only and the associated exclusion of public from East and West sides of Pier 5 and inaccessibility of the end of Pier 5 through a maze of housing units. 3. Demolition of Pier 5 which will uncover hazardous pollutants and waste likely to be found under Pier 5 based upon prior use as active Naval facility and historic use of lead, asbestos and other hazardous substances in connection with commonly used hazardous products. Release of these pollutants into the ‘clean harbor waters’ to the detriment of the public, marine and wild life.
Damage to adjacent structures 1. Destruction of Courageous Sailing and Water Dependent uses from increased footprint of Pier 5 reduction of Watersheet and Wind screen from the proposed developments. 2. Pier 5 demolition or dewatering and impact on adjacent foundation slurry wall of Flagship Wharf from both demolition and reconstruction or pile driving.
BPDA failure of stewardship of Pier 5 and resulting conflict of interest 1. BPDA and its predecessor have failed to demonstrate ownership of development rights, or recognize the development right limitations placed by BPDA predecessor BRA on Pier 5 development, which limits development to 15 townhouse units for the BPDA’s financial benefit. 2. BPDA’s failure to keep and maintain properties entrusted to its care based upon over 40 years of ownership of Pier 5 and its complete failure of maintenance and upkeep of Pier 5 (and other structures) based upon 30 year old studies which show required maintenance which were systematically and routinely ignored. 3. BPDA’s financial interest in development (overdevelopment) through linkage payments as a revenue source for operations and as a cover for its failure to maintain properties under its stewardship as noted above.
Engineering, design and regulations compliance concerns:
Re: Stop all RFP pending Comprehensive Cost/Benefit Studies of Pier 5Restoration VS Demolition and other Site Conditions
Dear Director Brian Golden and BPDA Co-Ordinator McDaniels, This BPDA RFP for CNY Pier 5 has not been comprehensively and responsibly thought out prior to issuing the “AS IS” offering —which is excerpted here: “The Property is intended for disposition by a long term ground lease by the BRApursuant to the RFP. The Property is being offered as is, without warranty of anykind, express or implied. If concerned about the Property’s condition, legal orphysical access and the maintenance thereof, property lines or boundariesor any other matter affecting the Property, prospective developers shouldinvestigate and conduct whatever due diligence and inspection deemednecessary.”
This letter is to demand that the BPDA stop this irresponsible RFP process until all the information and determinations required are obtained, comprehensive studies made by independent third parties, and all options evaluated and properly priced, etc. Perhaps the most essential and fundamental of the multitude of questions that have been compiled in this comment period is —What are the costs, impacts and benefits of: Demolition, hazardous materials clean-up, and reconstruction of the entire pier for heavy multi-story construction and requiring transport and disposal of enormous volumes construction waste. VS Pier restoration and “Leeds” environmental re-use and audit to support a straightforward lightweight park platform for a public use pier using pile wrapping techniques use for underwater bridge foundations piers.
This Cost / Benefit conclusion would appear to be a no-brainer, especially when you enter in Leeds audit, loss of public amenity, loss of tourism, the legal determinations such as whether the demolition or change of shape of the pier is even permitted by the original agreement with the U.S. Navy, etc. In attempting to obtain answers, there is the hesitance of political pressure on engineers and contractors who are asked. The only way to by-pass this information blocking is to request an independent study financed by the BPDA prior to proceeding with any action on the current RFP.
It may be that the consultants needed for a true independent cost / benefit analysis might be from outside of the regional sphere of influence. What detailed engineering drawings, specifications and condition reports, both existing and proposed, are actually available in full? Is there any change in the existing structure under the crane track? Toxic waste removal situation? Archeological, environmental and biological resource assessments? Climate resiliency? “Highest and Best Use” Alternatives. What are the actual requirements of the U.S. Navy Transfer
Documents regarding demolition, restoration or any change of shape, size or structural configuration? Is there a comprehensive analysis of all the Piers in Boston Harbor to determine historic, structural, environmental, climatic resilience, urbanistic vista values and best uses of our “Harbor Fringe of Piers” ? This is required by any professional Planning Department. Why is Charlestown Navy Yard Urban Pier 5 referred to in the Request for Proposals (“RFP”) as “a ground lease of a vacant parcel of land”, when it is actually an historic pier structure over Ch. 91 MA flooded tidelands which could be demolished. Does this require a unique “air rights” lease over flowed waterways and how is that worded? To consider demolishing such a large and important historic structure asopposed to its environmentally responsible reuse is a reckless misuse of resources. The issuing of an “As Is” RFP with complications of this magnitude is disrespectful of both the Community and the Proposers and wasteful of everyone’s time and money —especially tax payers. Due diligence has not been done. ________________________________________________________ Here is a partial list of people and organizations who you should contact. Please, don’t wait and send your comments ASAP: Hints: * Make it short and straightforward, but explain why you oppose privatization * Explain what you would like to see in the pier and the area * Tell (or remind:)) the City/BPDA of their obligation to maintain public areas * Explain why you think it is important for the generations to come
May 14, 2021 (BOSTON, MA) – As a result of a lawsuit won by Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Massachusetts officials have released new draft regulations concerning waterfront development. The rules propose to retroactively codify the state’s seventeen municipal harbor plans in an effort to correct legal deficiencies in the program uncovered by CLF’s lawsuit.
“These regulations impact everyone in Massachusetts,” said Peter Shelley, Senior Counsel at CLF. “The State can’t just rubber-stamp its way out of this problem and ignore the tidelands development principles it broke. The public needs to be involved in every step of this process and officials must offer more than just two public meetings. Access to the waterfront is enshrined in Massachusetts law and it must stay that way.”
CLF’s recent lawsuit challenged Boston’s Downtown Municipal Harbor Plan after state officials ignored decades-old rules governing public waterfront access in approving Boston’s plan. A judge ruled in favor of CLF in April.
CLF experts are available for further comment. Photo: The view from the Boston Harborwalk near the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts. Photo: Jerry Monkman
Signing the P5A petition and sharing with your friends supports the noble activism protecting green space and public harbor access from aggressive threats of privatization of the last open public waterfront in Boston.
Missions and visions of the future of Boston Harbor Waterfront vary widely. Resilient, public values are challenged by privatization of public assets.
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
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.” (http://www.bostonplans.org/planning/planning-initiatives/plan-charlestown#summary-goals) 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: (http://www.bostonplans.org/BRAComponents/WebParts/Default.aspx?id=4276&projectid=1253). 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” (https://www.riw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/00854411.pdf). 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
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.
Request for Proposals (“RFP”) PLAN: Charlestown Contact Information Ted.Schwartzberg@boston.gov 617-918-4230
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: 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.
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 (bostonplans.org). 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 (bostonplans.org) RFP for Plan: Charlestown page reference: PLANCharlestown (bostonplans.org). 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 (bostonplans.org) and Navy Yard Master Plan Implementation | Boston Planning & Development Agency (bostonplans.org). 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.