[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastai Zone information Center or C7 N1 RL ty 'A ? COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER A Framework for F 73.63 Planning Discussion . H37 1984 Harb ark CITY OF BOSTON 0 RAYMOND L. FLYNN. 0 MAYOR BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 13 STEPHEN COYLE El DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Robert L. Farrell Joseph J. Walsh JarriesK.Flaherty Clarerv-ei,jor*s William A.McDermott,Jr chairman Vice Chairman Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Wmber 0 brr FA)S MhMM AJ1 U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA CITYOF BOSTON MASSACHUSETr!FCOAST AL SERVICES CENTER 1 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CHARLESTON , SC 29405-24 13 RAYM,OND L. FLYNN There has alwaSts been a parallel between the fortunes of this city and the well-being of its waterfront. For more than 200 years, Boston's \iital water- front reflected our city's emergence as a center of shipping and international commerce, just as rotting piers and empty warehouses represented Boston's economic decfine after the Depression and through the period following World War 11. In recent yearsi we have seen encouraging signs of rebirth along our water's edge. But if commercial development'is enhanced.by locating along Boston's waterfront, then this renewal must be extended into the heart of our city and into our neighborhoods. I see the challenge to be guaranteeing that the quality of life of all our residents is improved by this economic growth. Harborpark presents a framework for discussing a set of new issues and new public policies for the development of Boston Harbor. First and foremost, Harborpark is designed to guarantee public access to the unique environment along the Boston Harbor, while encouraging balanced growth along the entire waterfront. Second, the Harborpark concept brings. rationality and a sense of public purpose to the process of growth. Each pier and wharf retains its own identity, yet each area has been integrated into.an uninterrupted walkway that extends from Charlestown to South Boston. Third, it combines public access to the water's edge with a diversity of uses: maritime and commercial activity which creates jobs, new housing for every income and household group, and the creation of areas for arts facilities. Most importantly, this planning process should rekindle the spirit of commun- ity, excitement and vitality in the place of Boston's origins. Boston has one of the world's most attractive harbors. We are now going to make sure that people, those who live in Boston and those who visit and work here, will be able to take full advantage of this great natural resource. Sincerely, property of CSc LibcmT R r+- BOS70N CM'HALL - ONE Clln'HALL 11A 7.1@I 'STC)N @,IAZ_@@:ACHU*cE77`, C12201 617/725-40N) HARBORPARK A FRAMEWORK FOR, PLANNING DISCUSSION October, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1. THE CONTEXT, FOR PLANNING 4 2.. HARBORPARK 19 3. PUBLIC BENEFITS 33 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 48 5. ZONING 51 6. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 64 7. FOLLOW THROUGH 76 CREDITS 77 INTRODUCTION Boston Harbor led the country into the mercantile period of the 18th century and helped finance the industrial revolution of the 19th century. Boston's economic competitiveness, however, waned during The Great Depression of the 1930s. A shift in patterns of trade and the location of manufacturing activities after the War resulted in decaying port facilities and abandoned warehouses and factories. Boston's economic revival, which began in the early 1960's and has continued to this day was initially spurred by the growth of non-Harbor related service activities. The attractiveness of Boston's waterfront has drawn development interests to the Harbor's edge, and the Harbor is once again a vital source of new growth for Boston's economy. Harborpark is meant to be a framework for discussing the ordering of this growth. It seeks balance, rationality, and harmony in the revival of the waterfront. By attempting to blend public interests and benefits with private Harbor uses, Harborpark encourages the creation of new jobs, investment, tax revenue, housing, and public access to the Harbor. A plan for ordered growth is necessary for the City at this time because the Harbor area can provide as much as one-third of the City's growth from 1984-90, including 8,000 new dwellings and 12,000 new residents. Without the public formulation of ground rules for this growth, the opportunity for revitalizing old neighborhoods and for creating new ones from abandoned piers, shipyards, and vacant land could be lost in the dis- putes and controversies which follow a closed process. Harborpark recognizes that these opportunities must not be lost, but also that revitalization must reflect a profound understanding of Boston's unique heritage. Rational land development and redevelopment policies are therefore essen- tial. With community involvement and support, Harborpark will evolve into a comprehensive Harbor plan containing five components, one corresponding to each Harborpark planning area: Inner Harbor, East Boston, Charlestown, South Boston, and Dorchester Beaches and Harbor Island (in conjunction with the state). The first Harborpark component, Harborpark Phase One -- Inner Harbor, is initiated by this report. The unifying principle of Harborpark together is public access, Harborpark guarantees that a balance will be struck between the economic health of the City and its inner life--its need for places where people can gather for social events, common recreation, or the quiet enjoyment of life and nature. The Harborpark concept guarantees not only public access to the Harbor itself but also to the process that will guide rational growth. In short, it is a framework for discussion, produced for the purpose of initiating a planning dialogue and process that will ultimately result in the formulation of a comprehensive Harborpark plan. Split into seven sections, this report addresses the necessary considerations for developing and adopting a comprehensive Harbor plan. Section one, Context for Planning, presents a history of the Harbor and briefly discusses the waterfront planning area neighborhoods -- East Boston, Charlestown, South Boston, and Dorchester Beaches. It is meant to pro- vide a perspective from which to proceed. The next section, Harborpark, outlines the important planning principles that will guide the future growth and development of the water- front; these principles endorse public access, urban design standards, and a set of public benefits -- recreational, cultural, educational, and economic -- which should flow from development activities. The seven mile Harborwalk is also proposed in this section; approximately five miles must be finished for the Harborwalk to become a reality. The Harborpark concept ensures that all private development includes public benefits. It is a principle that should be applied to all development citywide. The third section, Public Benefits, describes the twenty-one existing and planned projects for the inner Harbor and outlines the actual benefits that these projects will bring to the residents of Boston. This section conveys how public benefits can be attained through the planning and implementa- tion of development. Section four, Citizen Participation, starts with the premise that this plan can only be achieved with the active partici- pation, through the planning process, of all citizens inter- ested in the Harbor. Participants include Harbor community residents, business people operating on the waterfront, and citizens seeking the serenity 'and aesthetics of the Harbor. This section proposes the formation of a Harborpark Advisory Committee and outlines a timeframe for accomplishing its tas ks. The following section, Zoning, discusses how this significant planning tool should be used in achieving the goals and objectives of Harborpark. The report proposes the creation of an Interim Overlay Zoning District. The purpose of this temporary control is to prevent the intrusion of environ- mentally dangerous land uses in the Harbor area during the rezoning process. 2 The sixth section, Intergovernmental Coordination, provides .an overview of the institutional framework within which deci- sions affecting the Harbor are currently made, and highlights the institutional problems which currently present barriers to a coordinated and unified effort for the development of water- front properties. A recommendation is made for taking immed- iate actions to reduce the time associated with public appro- vals of Harbor projects. The final section, Follow-up, outlines the next steps that must be taken for the fruitful continuation of this planning process; it also provides a timeframe for near-term activities. The four Appendices to the report, Bibliography, Parcel Profiles, Economic Data, and Institutional Framework, provide additional detailed information that will serve as important reference resources for those who participate in the Harborpark planning process. In sum, the Harborpark planning report is the beginning of an important public process. As a minimum, it should engender a serious public discussion about the future of Boston Harbor. It should produce, as well, new approaches to planning, design, and development policies that could assist policy development for other areas of the City. It could help forge a genuine spirit of cooperation between the public and private sectors on the issue of balanced growth and development. It could provide for the citizens of Boston, and for the millions who visit our City each year, full enjoyment of continuous public access to the City's greatest physical asset, the Harbor. Finally, it will produce, through the process of open and informed public debate, a community more aware of the need to improve and preserve what it holds in trust for the contin- uing benefit of future generations. Perhaps one hundred years from now, people will celebrate the natural beauty and splendor of the Harbor and enjoy the continuous walkway along its edge the way we now appreciate the unique benefits of the Common, the Arboretum, Jamaica Pond, and the other parks and open spaces which were planned for our benefit and use one hundred years ago. Ai /1011 e 4 i i U THE CONTEXT FOR PLANNING Boston Harbor has played a varied role in the City's history. After generating great economic prosperity, the Harbor declined in both economic significance and physical condition from 1930 to 1960. Since this period, the City has enjoyed an economic revival while the Harbor has languished, having been overlooked until recently in the economic and physical transformation of the City. The Harbor, perhaps Boston's greatest natural resource, today it is underutilized and in danger of unsuitable and inappropriate development. Our greatest needs at this time are to assure balanced economic development and to guarantee increased public access to the waterf ront. Harborpark is an effort to address these problems .and to comprehensively plan the impending development of the Harbor in a balanced, thoughtful way. This section begins that process by providing a brief history of the Harbor, some characteristics of its surrounding communities, a description of Harbor-related environmental concerns, and finally, a glimpse of the Harbor's future. HISTORY The history of Boston Harbor spans three periods: (1) The Harbor as Dynamo: 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries; (2) The Decline of the City and the Harbor (1930-1960); and (3) The Current State of Boston Harbor (1960-1984). The Harbor as Dynamo: 17th, 18th, and 19th C,enturies In the City's beginning, the Port of Boston was literally a dynamo. It helped transform the U.S. into a mercantile nation in the 17th and 18th centuries, standing as the country's leading port until the mid-19th century. Creating opportunity and wealth, the Harbor was the binding force within the City's economy. In the first decade of the 1700s, practically one of every three adult males in Boston enjoyed some degree of ownership in at least one ocean- going vessel .... At the end of the clipper ship era (1855), Boston was a metropolis of refine- ment and wealth, the richest city for its size in the world. Louis E. Cellineri, Seaport Dynamics, Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1976. 4 The riches gained in trade by Boston seafarers were used to spur the Industrial Revolution in New England, to finance medical facilities and higher education, and to develop the West. Imports of sugar cane, cocoa bean, wool, cotton, hides, coffee, and tea filled warehouses from East Boston to Fort Point Channel. Fishing also became a large industry. Fleets of sailing ships were constructed on the Harbor's ways and docks; the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) was built in the North End. The Boston Navy Yard, situated in Charlestown and South Boston, was. one of the nation's first and largest shipyards, building vessels through World War 11. The Harbor had indeed become so integral to the City's economic well-being that by 1930, when Boston had more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs, almost half were Harbor-related. In the meantime, Boston's population had mushroomed from 18,320 in 1790, to 136,881 in 1850, 560,892 in 1900, and 781,188 in 1930. Mercantile riches, and the industrial revolution which they spurred, became the base for Boston's mid-19th century emergence as one of the nation's leading fiduciary and finan- cial centers, as the family fathers decided that fortunes gained at risk should not be risked again. These fortunes were used. to found Symphony Hall and the Museum of Fine Arts in the late 19th century; they also helped fund Fenway Park in 1912 and the Boston Garden in 1928. The Decline of the City and the Harbor (1930-1960). The Harbor's decline started with the creation of the Chesapeake & Ohio and the Erie Canals in the 1830s and 1840s, the construction of the railroads after 1850, and the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway a century later. These non-maritime transportation systems drastically shifted trade patterns, diminishing the Port of Boston's importance forever. The Harbor's decline accelerated as textile and shoe produc- tion moved to the South and West in the early 20th century. Manufacturing jobs became more scarce, to the extent that Boston lost more than 50,000 such jobs after 1930, over half of which were in the Harbor area. . Compounding the decline of port-related trade and manufactur- ing was the decay in public infrastructure that followed The Great Depression in 1930. No capital improvements, were made to the Harbor's piers and transportation system during this period as public and- private investment had collapsed. After the construction of the Ritz-Carlton, Parker House, Bradford, and Boston Park Plaza hotels in 1927, a new hotel was not bui.It in Boston for more than thirty years. Simi- larly, following the completion of the United Shoe Machinery Building in 1928, the next major office complex, the Prudential Center, was not constructed until 1960. Public investment sank to a low during this period with the net long-term debt of Boston declining to $59 million in 1956. The resulting loss of jobs and population in turn brought property value decreases and a drastic reductions in City revenues. Economic historian Russell Adams graphically describes the scene. The sagging, rotting, disused, misused wharves were not the only battered remnants of days. long past. There were also ships, or what was left of them after the ravages of time and scav- engers. Like dead and floundered sea creatures nipped by marauding sharks, a fleet of derelict hulls littered the harbor, bleached by the sun at low tide. Even at that, their day was not yet done; in the grim and needy winters of the early 1930s, some 120 of these skeletal vessels were dragged ashore, broken to bits, and picked over for firewood.* The Current State of Boston Harbor (1960-1984) Boston has experienced a steady economic transformation since the beginning of the last quarter of this century. The City's reshaped economic structure now favors a broad range of financial and service-based activities in which Boston has a specialization, and in which rapid national growth is occurring. Such activities include higher education, medicine, profes- sional services, and financial management. Since 1976, 60,000 new jobs (13,000 in 1983 alone) were created, private develop- ment investment exceeded $5 billion (measured in 1983 dollars), and the City's taxable property value more than doubled (to $14 billion). This new prosperity has allowed the population of Boston proper to stabilize after decades of disinvestment and suburbanization, and has brought development pressures and opportunities to the Harbor. Thus far, however, the role of Boston Harbor in the City's economic life and recent revival can be characterized as secondary in comparison to the pre-1930 period. Of the City's 560,000 jobs, perhaps 60,000, or about 11%, are Harbor related, a figure significantly below the 50% rate attained Russell B. Adams, The Boston Money Tree, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York, 1977. 6 during the Port of Boston's zenith. , Nonetheless, the Harbor area is not without resources and investment. The Harbor perimeter includes approximately $3 billion of the City's $14 billion of property value. One billion dollars of, the City's post-1975 growth of $5 billion has been invested in the area. And, roughly 2,000 of the City's 10,000 new housing units since 1970 have been constructed near the Harbor (primarily in the North End, Waterfront, and Charlestown neighborhoods). A careful look at the Harbor area, however, reveals serious misuse of this natural resource. Of the 2,000 acres of land bordering the Harbor (excluding Logan Airport), one-third is vacant, made up largely of land that once held warehouses, factories, piers, and houses. The majority of the vacant land is located in East Boston, Charlestown, and South Boston. Only 18 percent of this waterfront land is accessible to the public. In East Boston, about half the waterfront land is vacant, and little is accessible. A significant share of land parcels in the Harbor perimeter neighborhoods are in tax delinquency (tax possession and tax title), including 13 percent in Ward 6 (South Boston-North) and 27 percent in Ward 13 (Savin Hill); together these two Wards contain 1,500 tax delinquent parcels. In addition, there are a total 1,600 tax delinquent parcels in Ward 1 (East Boston), Ward 2 (Charlestown), Ward 3 (Boston Proper) and Ward 7 (South Boston-South). Environmental problems also exist, particularly with respect to sewage treatment and water quality. A plan for improving the Harbor's water quality was presented in 1975, but from 1979 to 1982, less than $1 '5 million of a recommended $1.2 billion was invested. An $11 million expenditure in 1983 represented only a fraction of the $500 million needed in the 1984-1989 period, -as projected by the MDC.* State action is expected soon on sewer treatment and water quality issues. Without administrative reform and a substantial public funding commitment (at least $300 million), no progress will be made on these vital issues. HARBOR NEIGHBORHOODS The neighborhoods contiguous to the Harbor -- East Boston, Charlestown, South Boston, and portions of Dorchester -- are most directly affected by the condition of the Harbor. These neighborhoods are each currently faced with opportunities Boston Redevelopment' Authority,- Boston's Infrastructure- Investment Record: 1978-1983 and Current Plans, April, 1984. 7 to develop their Harbor lands. (Neighborhood development opportunities are listed in Table 1.) Whether a particular development project or land use is beneficial to a neighbor- hood depends on a number of factors: the type of project, its scale and density, the characteristics of that neighbor- hood, and the goals of its residents. Changes in labor force, unemployment rates, average number of weeks unemployed, occupations, and industry of employment of residents from each Harbor neighborhood and for the City as a whole are listed in Table 2. These figures show that the Harbor neighborhoods have a somewhat higher unemployment rate than exists City-wide and that the workers in these neighborhoods are more likely to be employed in blue-collar jobs. As a result, Harbor area residents are likely to be slightly worse-off economically than the average Boston resi- dent. Orderly growth along the Harbor presents the oppor- tunity to help the residents of these neighborhoods recapture losses suffered from the diminished role of Boston Harbor as a major seaport. The benefits can be economic, recreational, and. aesthetic. The major resources- of these neighborhoods are land and people. A short profile on these two aspects of each neigh- borhood follows. East Boston East Boston contains.about 480 acres of land along the Harbor, half of which is vacant and little of which is accessible. In the early 1800s, East Boston's waterfront was important in Boston's commercial history, particularly for shipbuilding at .sites such as the Donald McKay shipyards. Existing port facilities, however, are now obsolete, and modernization is constrained by a lack of space, inadequate. access roads, and the prohibitive costs of infrastructure requirements. The labor force of East Boston decreased by 11% between 1970 and 1980, a rate significantly greater than the City-wide decrease of 2.1%. East Boston's unemployment rate of 7.4% is also significantly above the City-wide figure of 6.1%. These figures demonstrate East Boston's traditional dependence on manufacturing related activities and their long decline. Charlestown Charlestown, founded in 1629, grew quickly with its water- front devoted to shipbuilding and industrial uses. The Navy Yard, now nearly 200 years old, was the town's chief employer and the site where 35 warships were built in a short 40-year period beginning in 1825. Charlestown's waterfront proper- ties, nearly all of which are used for commercial and indus- trial purposes, total about 350 -acres. Charlestown has the highest unemployment rate of all the Harbor neighborhoods (7.7%), but has fared better with those who are employed than the other three Harbor communities. An influx of new residents arrived in the 1970s, increasing the labor force by 6%. As a result, more workers are employed in professional and managerial level jobs (25%) than in the other neighborhoods. South Boston In South Boston, nearly half of the 600 acres of w@terfront land is used for public recreational purposes along the south- ern shoreline. The remaining 300 acres, located at Fort Point Channel, are used for commercial and industrial purposes. Planned major new transportation improvements, including the Seaport Access Road, Third Harbor Tunnel, and the new Northern Avenue Bridge, will provide dramatically expanded access to these areas. South Boston faces continued unemployment problems. Presently 6.7% of its work force is unemployed and the average length of unemployment is over 15 weeks, almost a month longer than the City-wide average. South Boston is also nearly as depen- dent as East'Boston on manufacturing activities (17.3%). -All neighborhoods have experienced a shift in their employment base since 1970, from manufacturing to service industries, but South Boston has shifted the least, and is well below the City-wide shift. Additionally, South Boston has lost almost 16% of its workforce, the worst of any Harbor neighborhood, and 13% higher than the average City-wide loss. Dorchester Dorchester,. from Columbia Point to Port Norfolk, completes the southern edge of the Harbor area. Of the approximately 600 acres bordering the waterfront, nearly half are vacant, a third are used for commercial and industrial purposes, and about 70 acres are used for public recreation at the MDC- owned Malibu and Tenean beaches. Substantial housing development efforts are contemplated at Columbia Point, and additional land is being acquired and developed by the MDC for public bikeways and walkways connecting the beach areas with the marshes along the Neponset River. The areas of Dorchester nearest the Harbor have the most workers of the four neighborhoods, and comprise 7% of the total Boston labor pool. The unemployment rate (7.3%) is 9 similar to East Boston's. The labor pool is fairly balanced, with 24% employed in professional and managerial occupations, and 21% employed in crafts and operatives. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS For the past several years, development in Boston has been intensifying, transforming the urban topography, and conse- quently affecting the interaction of the natural elements -- air circulation, wind, and sunlight. Tall, closely spaced buildings cause a variety of conditions which affect human health, safety, and psychological well-being. High velocity, localized winds that are generated by densely configured structures, for example, can be uncomfortable as well as dangerous to pedestrians. When high velocity winds, which naturally occur at higher elevations, sweep down the leeward face of a tall structure, they are brought to ground level. Because Boston is a naturally windy city, with average annual wind speeds of 13.3 miles per hour, winds can accel- erate to gale force when whipping around the corners of monolithic structures or when channeled into narrow corridors between the walls of buildings. insensitive building height, massing, and density can also block sunlight at the pedestrian level, creating a dark oppressive environment and minimizing the beneficial effects of the sun in the warmer and colder months of the year. Being a naturally windy city Boston conversely has the opportunity to help disperse automobile. pollution. The over- whelming source of air pollution in Boston is the automobile, which releases carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Because these pollutants are released at ground level, where dense rows of buildings on narrow streets can form "street canyons", these pollutants sometimes become condensed and trapped. In the event of a temperature inversion, dispersion of such pollutants is inhibited and can cause acute human respiratory problems. Another environmental danger comes from industries that pollute the Harbor's water by dumping heavy metals, chemicals, and organic pollutants. Storm drainage from road surfaces also sends toxic lead and petroleum residue into the marine ecosystem. To help alleviate these environmental ills, Boston must be viewed as an element in an ecosystem that includes plant and animal life, air and light, surface and ground water, geologic features, and people. Harborpark approaches development as part of this natural system with the goal of balanced growth for the harborfront. As Anne Whiston Spirn has commented: 10 More fortunate are those few cities that have adapted ingeniously to nature: Stuttgart, West Germany', which has, deployed its parkland to funnel clean, cool air into its congested down- town; Woodlands, Texas, a new town whose private and public open spaces function as an effective storm drainage system, soaking up floodwaters and preventing floods downstream; Boston, where wetlands upstream of the city were purchased for flood storage at a fraction of the cost of a new dam.* Harborpark is a continuation of this tradition. Low rise buildings are proposed for the Harbor's edge. The interim zoning ordinance will give the opportunity to avoid the clus- tering of large buildings and the resultant strong ground level winds. Special design will be required in large build- ings and intensive tree plantings proposed in the design of Harborpark will reduce wind impacts. Encouragement of the use of water taxies, off-site parking, and mass-transit are incorporated into.Harborpark to reduce automobile pollution. Strict design standards for new buildings and the interim zoning will prevent new sources of Harbor pollution. Federal and court mandated improvements to the regional sewerage handling system will result in reduction of water pollution over time. THE FUTURE OF BOSTON,AND THE HARBOR The Boston economy 's expected growth, for the remaining years of this decade and beyond, should have a special significance for the Harborpark neighborhoods. Projections for the City's economic future show the continued transforma- tion of Boston's economic base and a growing specialization in a broad range of service activities. Between now and the early 1990s, Boston could gain more than 70,000 new jobs, and $6 bill ion of private development investment. More than 40,000 of these jobs are projected for the greater Central Boston area, encompassing all of downtown, Charlestown, East Boston piers, the North End, the waterfront, and South Whiston Spirn, Anne, The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1984, P. 10. Boston, Beacon Hill, and Back Bay.* (See Table 3.) The Harbor area could likewise account for $2 billion of the pro- jected $6 billion of private development investment anticipated in the 1984-90+ period and generate $150 million of the $450 million in anticipated added property tax revenue. (See Table 4.) Harbor related growth could strengthen and broaden the City's economy, and it could do so without harming the environment or excluding local residents from the benefits. By 1990, 8,000 new housing units with an additional popula- tion of 12,000 people are expected for the Harbor area. (See Table 5.) The challenge Boston faces is to channel growth, to achieve a balance between new economic development, jobs, restoration, and public access, and between port and non- port related activities. An orderly and comprehensive plan- ning process is the first step toward realization of this goal. Boston Redevelopment Authority, Boston Employment, City of Boston, Central Boston and Downtown Office, 1976-1983 and 1990 Projected, August 1984. 12 S:T Q W W PC 98 .0 r I IV 'A L43 I" (D rr 10 C4 Ro 0i C. M, sa PP 'm" "1 0 A CA x c 9 j 1 9 a In ITS lw W rA m 04 (D "0 cm 0- m (D 0- rr C-D Q 93 TABLE 2 EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF HARBOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND CITY OF BOSTON East Charles- South Dor- Total Total Boston town Boston chester Neigh. Boston LABOR FORCE 14,547 6,462 14,055 18,974 52,826 272,794 % Employed-- Change 1970-1980 - 11.0 6.2 15.5 N/A 6.8 2.1 Unemployment Rate 7.4 7.7 6.7 7.3 7.3 6.1 Mean Weeks Unemployed 1.2.2 14.0 15.2 16.0 14.7 11.5 OCCUPATIONS %Prof. Manag. 1980 Tech. 15.2 24.7 15.9 23.5 19.8 30.2 %Crafts & Operatives .27.4 18.6 25.2 21.2 23.1 17.4 %Prof. Manag. 1970 Tech. 11.5 @ 12.1 12.4 N/A 12.0 22.4 %Crafts & Operatives 37.6 27.7 29.0 N/A 31.4 24.0 INDUSTRY OF EMPLOYMENT %Services & 1980 Finance 36.8 43.5 34.8 37.9 38.3 50.1 %Manufacturing 20.5 13.1 17.3 15.4 16.6 14.2 %Services & 1970 Finance 23.6 26.9 27.6 N/A 26.0 38.3 %Manufacturing 27.0 21.1 20.2 N/A 22.8 17.6 TABLE 3 THE BOSTON ECONOMY: EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Harbor City Periphery Periphery of as Percent Boston of Boston Increase in Jobs (1976-83) 10,000 60,000 17% Total Existing Jobs (1983) 60,000 560,000 11% Manufacturing* 14,000 Logan Airport 11,000 Eating, Drinking, Hotels 7,000 Finance & Business Services 10,000 Truck & Warehouse 4,000 Ship Repair 800 Fishing & Professional 500 Health, Education & Legal 4,000 Other .8,700 Projected Increase in Jobs (1984-90) 25,000 75,000 33% Office 16,000 Industrial. 2,000 Communications 2,000 Fishing 2,000 Eating, Drinking, Hotels 2,-000 Transportation 1,250 Includes food processing, printing and publishing, and apparel. Source: BRA Research Department, September 28, 1984. TABLE 4 THE BOSTON ECONOMY: PROPERTY VALUE AND INVESTMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS. Millions Harbor City Periphery Periphery of as Percent Boston of Boston Property Value (1983) 3,000 14,000 21% Property Tax Revenue (1983) 70 333 21% Private Development Investment (1976-83)* 1,000 5,000 20% Public Investment (1976-83) 500 2,500 20% Projected Increase in Property Tax Revenue (1984-90) 150 450 33% Projected Private Development Investment (1984-90)** 2,000 6,000 33% Projected Public Investment (1984-90) 1,000 3,000 33% Includes- Federal Reserve Building Boston Marine Industrial Park Charlestown Navy Yard Marriott Long Wharf Hotel Bird Island Flats Includes officespace growth of ove r 4 million square feet and industrial space growth of over 1 million square feet. Source: BRA Research Department, September 28, 1984. 16 TABLE 5 THE BOSTON ECONOMY: POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Harbor City Periphery Periphery of as Percent Boston of Boston Population Change (1970-80) 4,500 -78,000 Population (1980) 111,653 5631000 20%@ Housing Unit Increase (1970-80) 2,191 10,000 22% Housing Units (1980) 50,881 2411000 21% Persons per Household (1980) 2.2 2.3 Projected Increase in Population (1984-90) 12,000 221000 55% Projected Increase In Housing Units (1984-90) 8,000 16,000 50% Source: BRA Research Department, September 18, 1984. 17 BosmN filedAr" IndeNed bWCM"haW&W CHARL93MOWN 0 -7 tic W6 min 30M BOSTON Ram THE FILLED-IN ARE AS OF BOSTON Boston has greatly increased in am by filling bays, 6. South Boston, mount about 714 acres, begun in coves, and inlen. The original area is usually given as 1836, still in process. 783 acreL The filled-in lands add between three and four times that amount. Dates and amounts given below 7. Marine Park, acquired in 1883, about 17 acres; are approximate only as records do not agree, having been bridge to Castle bland, July 1, 1891, included in. South made at differenc times and by different men, and in cer- Boston fillinS. tain localities filling-in is still in procem The figures are the best available and the numbered paragraphs refer LBoston Air Port, authorized, May 12, 1922, about to sections indicated on the accompanying map. 150 acres in 1928, opened Sept. 8, 1923; part of the East 1. Back Bay, amount about 170 acres, mostly done Boston fillinS. . I after ISS6 and continued to 1894. 9. East Boston, amount about 370 acrm begun in Ia. West Cove, amount about So acres, begun in 1803 1880, not yet completed. and completed in 1863. 10. Charlestown, amount about 416 acres, begun.. 2. Mill Cove, amount about 70 acres, begun in 1804 1860, completed to present state about 1896. and completed in 1831. Much of the filling north of the Causeway (indicated on the map by a line) was done 11. Columbus Park with Strandway, amount about in 1935. 261 acres, acquired, 1890-1901; part of South Boston 3. Gr,:21 Of East Cove, amount about 112 acres, begun filling, as given above. .' in 1823 and completed in 1874. Much of the filling material for the Back Bay disttict 4. South Cove, amount about 86 acres, begun in 1806 came from Needham; the contractors, Goss and Munsm, and completed in 1843. built six miles of railroad to - facilitate transportation. 5. Roxbury, mount about 322 acres, the filling-in of The mill pond was filled from the cutting down of Sen- whi,Lh might be said to have started with that of the tr,- (Beacon) and Cotton (Pemberton) Hills. The West Back Bay as it was a continuation of it, becoming quite Cove was filled in part from the cutting down of West active in 1378 and completed in the 1890's, excepting Hill (Mt. Vernon). Fort Hill contributed to the filling that part bordering on the South Bay, which is in the sec- along Atlantic Avenue and to raising the gra& of terri- tion marked "Ia". tory whose drainage had been impaired by the filling-in of the Back Bay. The dumping of city ashes and the Ia. South Bay, amount about 138 acres, begun in 1810, dredging of the harbor also furnished material for vari. not yet completed. ous filling& 18 Harborpark *4A HARBORPARK Harborpark Phase One is represented by a proposed physical plan for public and private improvements, presented on the following page, and by a series of proposed policies and guidelines regarding Inner Harbor Access and Urban Design, the first and second sections, respectively. The third des- cribes Harborwalk; the fourth presents Harborpark's related objectives with respect to; Recreation; Culture, Education, and the Arts; Economic Development; and Transportation. Harborpark Phase One is the proposed plan for Boston's Inner Harbor. It encompasses a seven mile area, stretching between the Charlestown Navy Yard, the North End, downtown waterfronts, Fort Point Channel, and the Fan Piers. As the first installation of Harborpark, Phase One seeks to generate a public discussion about the Inner Harbor. It thus presents both a plan and a set of concepts. The plan is for a water- front walkway, Harborwalk, and the provision of certain public amenities along that walkway. Harborpark's concept is to ensure balanced, controlled, and rational growth in the, Inner Harbor. Central to the concept of Harborpark Phase One are the goals of ensuring that all people have access to the water's edge and access to the waterfront's economic and physical opportuni- ties. The Harborpark plan and policies which follow aim to meet these goals in a number of ways: o By encouraging a balanced mix of private development and public improvements; o By proposing the creation of a continuous seven-mile long waterfront walkway and the reforestation of the waterfront adjacent to the walkway; o By establishing guidelines and criteria for private clevel- opments to ensure their compatibility with the character of the waterfront and to minimize their adverse environ- mental effects; and c By proposing a series of public spaces and public facili- ties which will provide opportunities for recreational and cultural activities. ACCESS An important proposed goal of Harborpark Phase One is to improve public access to the Boston waterfront. Public access in this context means not only that all citizens can UP AIr W4 .4 MA 0 (D FAN PIER AQUARIUM SARGENT'S WHARF CHARLES RIVER DAM AREA Public Marina, Promenade Harborview, Seat Pool and Fountain Water Twd, Public Boat Docking, Housing Observaton Bridge, Paul Revere Landing water Taxi Dock (D LONG WHARF/T WHARF UNION WHARF CHARLESTOWN CITY SQUARE/ (D NEW NORTHERN Boat Docks, Major Vicinity Area, Park @ Harborwalk RAPIDS WAREHOUSE AVENUE BRIDGE WALK TO THE SEA LINCOLN WHARF DEVELOPMENT Harbor Walk and Landscape Park Bandstand, Public Promenade, Fireboat Pier, Tall Ship Dock Harborview, Marina, Harborwalk (D HISTORIC NORTHERN Landscaped Area AVENUE BRIDGE BATTERY WHARF HOOSAC PIER COMMERCIAL WHARF Lobster Pound, Harbor Viewing Area Harborwalk Public Dock 'Manna, Boat Basin, Maritime Museum, Public Dock Observation Tower CONSTITUTION WHARF @CHARLESTOWN LEWIS WHARF Harbor Viewing Pier, Harborwalk SHIPYARD PARK (D ROWES AND FOSTER'S WHARF Wintergafden, Aviary Public Marina, USS Consttuton, Major Boat Terminal, 8th Floor Public Observation NORTH END PLAYGROUND Path Park Deck, Public Access PILOT HOUSE Boccie Courts, Hockey Rink, (1) INDIA WHARF Harborvew, Public Seating Swimming Pools Harborwalk-Seating Harborpark Phase One gain physical proximity to the Harbor, but th?it they ca*n also take advantage of the new jobs, housing, and recreational opportunities that develop along the waterfront. Harborpark Phase One seeks to guarantee pedestrian, visual, land, and water access to the Harbor through the following concepts and proposals. Pedestrian Access o Harborpark Phase One proposes a continuous seven mile public waterfront path, called Harborwalk, connecting the wharves and linking waterfront activities together. 0 Harborwalk and its links to downtown, the North End, and City Square could be clearly identified with lighting, signs, special landscaping, and fine art. o Harborwalk could also include connections to the Freedom Trial, the Esplanade and the existing network of open space amenities, parks, paths, and bikeways. Harborwalk could be free from barriers that would inhibit wheelchair access; and paving textures and other techniques could be used to facilitate access by people with impaired vision. 20 Water Access o Harborpark Phase One proposes to encourage the use of ferry service to East Boston, water-taxis to the airport, Charlestown, and Columbia Point, and commuter boats to the North and South Shores and to the Harbor Islands. Creation of this Inner Harbor water transit system could more than triple the current volume of 2,000,000 boat- based passenger trips. � Water transit terminals, marina facilities, dinghy landings and moorings, and marine -service and supply stations are proposed for locations at the Fan Piers, Northern Avenue Bridge, Rowes, Long, Commercial, Lewis, Sargent's and Lincoln Wharves, and in. Charlestown. � When new roads and bridges are needed, they should be designed to accommodate marine activities@ and to enhance the character of the waterfront. 21 0 The proposed private development plans for major wharves Long, Sargent's, Lincoln, and Fan Pier -- now include. facilities for the docking of Tall Ships and for public viewing, and present opportunities for special maritime events. Visual Access o Harborpark Phase One attempts to enhance existing views of the wharves and the Harbor from the City at City Square along Hanover Street at Fleet, Clark, and Battery Streets; from Government Center along the Walk-to-the-Sea; from the Downtown Financial District along Broad and High Streets; and from South Boston at Pittsburgh, Sleeper, and Farnsworth Streets. New vistas should also be established by defining new view corridors. o. Harborpark Phase One proposes to secu re unobstructed public views of the City from Fan Pier, Long Wharf, and Sargent's Wharf, and from across the Harbor, so that the public pier-heads become attractive places to visit. o Viewing towers and large-scale sculpture are also pro- posed to identify major public docking facilities at Fan Pier, Fort Point Channel, Rowes, Long, Sargent's and Lincoln Wharves. itI/ 22 URBAN DESIGN Harborpark Phase One design standards will seek to create a new image that derives from the traditional scale and character of the waterfront and that recalls the highest standards of Boston's architectural heritage. The relationship between land and water should be enhanced by sensitive site planning and building design that encourages recollection of our history, while recognizing the special design problems of a marine environment. The Boston Redevelopment Authority will publish interim design standards for Harborpark on November 20, 1984. The following design principles will guide these standards. 2 0 U 10 1z D U 0 M I lull 0 ta i In -M Site Design o Central to Harborpark Phase One's design concept should be the provision of attractive public amenities on each of the wharves. J@ 'PIZ o New developments should be required to provide low structures at the edge of the water and to enhance the finger pier form for wharves. o The public nature of Harborpark Phase One should be expressed through easily recognized symbols -- arcades, domes, and observation towers. Piers should be designed to be welcoming. el o Fine art sculptures, murals, and special gardens should be signatures that identify Harborwalk and enhance the user's. sense of quality. Building Design � Harborpark building design 'guidelines should require that new buildings be designed with respect for architec- tural history and traditions. � Building design should recall the traditional shape, roof- lines, and massing of the historic waterfront. � The local architectural vernacular of penthouse and shed structures should also be reflected in new buildings. 24 o The careful use of color, texture, detailing, and masonry materials could enhance the maritime character of Harborpark. o Special public spaces should be recognized as deserving special forms that have kinship with the best examples of exhibit and waterfront architecture. a a t- m F5 M C3 0 t3 C3 13 C? (3 9 00 0 C03 Wall 00 tu 0 Q 0 Landsc lesign � Harborpark Phase One should offer citizens and visitors of Boston a great many new plantings and respite from city streets. This concept devolves from Frederick Law Olmsted, designer of Boston's Emerald Necklace and Marine' Park/Castle Island among many other important open spaces in the country. He designed his parks as "places of respite from the City, spaces to provide... a pleasure common, constant and universal ... which results from the feeling of relief... on escaping from the cramped, confining and controlling circumstances of the streets of .the town." Olmsted also said, "The principal element of a park is its plantings." � Harborpark seeks to return the edge of the Harbor to a more natural state with the planting of thousands of trees and plants. 2S 0 Rows of leafy, canopy trees should edge broad promena des and walks, providing dappled shade on hot sunny days for the pleasure of strollers, joggers, and busy citizens. Seasonal changes of color and texture, fragrant spring and summer flowering trees, wind deflection and strong feelings of place should be other benefits. 4111 o These street trees will also link Harborpark back into the city and similarly lead people from the city core to Harborwalk; trees should define the streets and walks with ribbons of green. 0 I +A UU?-UU SM Mm W IL 26 ''fit o Bosques and groves of evergreen trees in the more protected garden areas could insure greenery for the winter months, variety of form and texture, and wind- breaks for easier access during stormy weather. Evergreen, trees could define space, frame and reveal views and vistas, screen and provide privacy, and reduce glare, noisel and air pollution. o The microclimate of the Harbor requires the use of hardy, seaside plant varieties, which will tolerate salt spray and windy conditions. Sycamore Maples (Acer pseucloplatanus), Thornless Honeylocusts (Gleditsia triacanthos inermis), London Planetrees (Platanus aceri- folia), and Pin and Red Oaks (Quercus palustris and Quercus rubra) are therefore recommended, as are Austrian Pines (Pinus nigra) and Japanese Black Pines (Pinus thunbergii) as evergreens. Recommended shrubs include the Juniper (Juniperus horizontals 'Blue Rug' and 'Bar Harbor'), Yew (Taxus baccata), Rock Spray Cotoneaster, Barberry, Bayberry, and Rosa rugosa since they are at home in this ocean setting and will provide a variety of color, texture, and interest. o Planting beds and tubs featuring hardy perennials, low shrubs, spring bulbs and seasonal flowers could enliven and beautify Harborwalk; they should be placed in quiet sitting spaces with a backdrop of green trees and shrubs, in large open plazas with vendors, in restaurants and shops, on terraces of adjoining buildings, and on walk- ways and boardwalks. rf r L 27 o The palette of landscape materials established at Waterfront Park, the Marriott Long Wharf Hotel,, the Aquarium, Harbor Towers and 400 Atlantic Avenue should continue in Harborpark Phase One to further define and identify the space. These materials include 'Mariner' light fixtures, wooden benches with backs, trash receptacles, and signage. Appropriate walkway paving materials -- brick, granite, wooden deck, stoneclust -- could also permit ease of movement in all types of weather. THE HARBORWALK When complete, the Harborwalk will be a seven mile pedestrian- way that will provide access to both the waterfront and the cultural and recreational facilities outlined in the Harborpark plan. At present, less than two miles of the Harborwalk is complete. Over five additional miles of the Harborwalk will be built by 1990. As delineated in the following schedule, over half of the improvements will occur during the next three years. Harborwalk Completion Schedule 1984-85 Walk to the Sea .61 miles Constitution Wharf .63 North End Playground .45 Subtotal 1.69 miles 1985-87 Rowes/Fosters Wharf .22 India Wharf .11 Union Wharf .22 Lincoln and Battery Wharf .50 Charles River Dam .09 Hoosac and Shipyard Park .23 Subtotal 1.37 miles 1987-89 Fan Pier 1.24 Northern Avenue .40 Long Wharf .11 Commercial Wharf .22 Lewis Wharf .05 Sargent's Wharf .25 Subtotal 2.27 miles Over 80% of this additional Harborwalk will be built, and maintained, by the private sector. RELATED OBJECTIVES Recreation Harborpark would encourage a variety of recreational attrac- tions at each Of the wharves for the public to participate in and enjoy year round. o Harborwalk, as proposed, is designed to attract a broad range of residents and visitors to boating activities, as well as to more passive pursuits such as sun-bathing and brown-bagging. o Swimming pools, softball fields, boccie courts, a hockey rink, and a fishing pier should offer opportunities for waterfront enjoyment to the North End community. o Harborpark's amenities and attractions should appeal to a broad spectrum of interests, returning the life of the City to the water's edge. o Harborpark Phase One would enable the City and public to program many events including a possible Harborpark run, the blessing of the fleet, concerts, drama, clam- bakes, a-fireboat demonstration, and a July 4th display of fireworks. A Mao 29 - Culture, Education, and the Arts Another major objective of the plan is to bring Boston's unique love of culture, education, and the arts to its waterfront. This could be accomplished as follows: o Harborpark Phase One proposes settings for concerts, drama, music, and dance. o Harborpark recommends new cultural facilities including public art and museums for the Harbor area. o Harborpark would encourage cultural and historical exhibits and displays of research efforts, bringing Boston's history to life. Economic Development A critical element of Harborpark is to provide for balanced, rational, and orderly growth along the Harbor. This is a two- part process: Harborpark must control and channel growth where development pressures are severe, so that the public's interests are advanced, and it must seek creative techniques to encourage growth where it is needed but not forthcoming. o Harborpark Phase One seeks to encourage a balanced mix of private development, which would include affordable housing, office space, retail shops, and entertainment, hotel, and conference facilities. o A central precept of Harborpark is that Boston residents and visitors of all income levels be served by Harborpark facilities; a diversity of uses is therefore contemplated. o Special planning efforts will be needed to evaluate the best opportunities and to shape longer term strategies for the economic development of the South Boston, the East Boston piers, and the Charlestown Navy Yard. These efforts must involve the appropriate City depart- ments and agencies, the state government, the private sector and the neighborhoods. Transportation Harborpark seeks not only to take advantage of current private development resources but also to help improve the City's transportation art work. o Harborpark helps establish the increased use of water transit systems to reduce the current dependence on vehicular transportation. 30 o Harborpark proposes enhanced automobile and tour'bus access and parking. o Harborpark also proposes.that new parking be required as part of the development process at the following locations: Charlestown Navy Yard, Sargent's Wharf, Rowes/Fosters Wharf, Fort Point Channel Area, South Station, and North Station. o In and adjacent to Harborpark, parking. should be. limited to underground sites or the reuse of existing buildings. o Subway stations should be marked with a distinctive Harborpark logo and provide detailed area maps to help encourage the increased use of mass transit. .o Special design attention could be given to the creation of all weather connections between parking and mass transit stops and the.various boat terminals. 00 0 31 � .......... LINO XXX:::@ . .... ...... CT), A .......... .......... V ROWES On LONG WHA ...................... . IL FAN PIER V SARGE WHARF .................... .,w WATERTAXI to Airport &Wharves ........... EXCURSION BOATS FERRIEStoHarbor Islands COMMUTER TERMINAL Taxi & Ferries to Columbia Point, Squantum South Shore & Airport Harborpa r k -Transportation -Components SUMMARY Harborpark must be a cooperative effort. The map of the walkway, the identification of specific improvements and the statements of policies and guidelines represent a proposal for an integrated plan to bring balanced and orderly growth to the waterfront and make the waterfront more enjoyable and accessible to all people. This proposed plan, however, is only the beginning. Citizen participation is the essential next step for Harborpark. Balanced growth, economic and recreational benefits, improved environment, and public facilities resulting from implementing Harborpark Phase One should provide an example and goal for other parts of Boston's waterfront. The following chapters describe the public benefits of Harborpark and a public participation process for the implementation of the plan. 32 Public Ben.efits ---------- Will, OR i @ 1. iNT PUBLIC BENEFITS The principal goal of Harborpark is to boost Boston's quality of life. In keeping with this goal, Harborpark will result in numerous Public economic and social benefits for the residents and visitors of Boston. These benefits, including new job opportunities, new housing, improved public transportation, additional tax revenues, and a variety of new cultural and recreational opportunities are discussed below. JOBS The seven Harborpark developments, which include existing and proposed projects, represent a total investment of over $450 million by 1990. (See Table 1) The four projects, which have an estimated completion date of 1987, will produce an investment of over $136 million. The largest project, at the Fan Pier, will not be completed until the 1987-1989 period, and will double all investments of the previous period. This investment.will be guided by Harborpark's concepts to d i rect the economic benefits to Boston neighborhoods. TABLE 1 HARBORPARK DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS AND JOBS GENERATED Development Jobs I nvestment Construction Permanent 1985-87 Rowes & Fosters $ 56,760,000 756 1,379 Sargent's Wharf 38,240,000 510 647 Lincoln Wharf 17,650,000 235 3 City Square/ Rapids Warehouse 24,000,000 320 827 136,650,000 1,821 2,856 1987-89 Fan Pier 279,000,000 3,720 1,628 Commercial Wharf 11,410,000 152 402 Lewis Wharf 23,600,000 315 596 314,010,000 4,187 2,626 TOTAL $450,660,000 6,008 5,482 These investments will generate over 6,000 construction jobs and nearly 5,500 permanent jobs. An important objective of Harborpark is to direct these jobs to Boston residents, minori- 53 ties and women. Therefore, it is proposed that hiring goals, such as those expressed in Mayor Flynn's Executive Order, which mandates that 50% of construction jobs be awarded to Boston residents, 25% to minorities and 10% to women, be adopted as part of the long-term Harborpark plan. Because there have been shortfalls in implementing this Executive Order, better monitoring of hiring agreements will be re- quired if the promise of benefits is to produce actual employ- ment opportunities. Not only will Boston residents directly benefit by increased jobs, but local service oriented businesses will prosper as they meet the needs of new developments. This ripple effect increases the economic benefits of the seven development projects to produce a larger overall effect. By 1990, investment in the Harborpark area could surpass $2 billion, which is over one-third of the total $6 billion invest- ment in the City of Boston currently anticipated in the same period. This $2 billion i.s double the sum invested in the same area during the 1976-1983 period. This growth could provide space and demand for up to 25,000 new jobs, compared to the 10,000 new Harbor area jobs generated between 1976-1983; such employment would consti- tute one-third of Boston's expected 75,000 new jobs. New office space will generate a lesser number of jobs. Blue collar jobs will be created in the fishing, industrial, com- munications, hotel, and restaurant industries. The remaining jobs will be in the transportation sector. The key questions that arise from this amount of development interest are: (1) How much growth is optimal; (2) What kinds of projects are best for each Harbor area or parcel; (3) What public benefits can be obtained from each development; (4) What overall plan can maximize the quality of life for Boston residents; and (5) Is such a plan consistent with maximizing private benefits? Since Harborpark includes all of Boston's shoreline, its ultimate and direct benefits will be felt by more than 100,000 residents or close to 20% of the City's population. These are neighborhoods which experienced an overall drop in population and a labor force loss as the Harbor declined. Balanced development can revitalize those neighborhoods which are among those most in need. 54 HOUSING An important contribution to the City's quality of life will be the housing generated by Harborpark. Steady population growth and a continuing decline in average household size hold the prospect for a healthy increase in the number of households. Given this, and the current situation where sixty-three percent of the City's 1980 housing stock was built before 1940, it's clear that Boston will require substantial new housing over the next decade. New demand for housing, based on population growth and an increasing household formation rate, is projected at 22,500 units during the 1980s. Adding an allowance for the replacement of the existing housing stock at the rate of five percent a decade (12,000), indicates a decennial need for roughly 34,500 new housing units, or 3,450 a year.* Housing developed along the Harbor can help meet this.growing demand. Because Harbor views command a market premium, however, new Harbor area housing will be expensive to construct, rent or purchase. 'Harborpark proposes to simul- taneously address the supply and affordability questions by encouraging the construction of Harbor housing, while re- quiring that 30% of such housing units be available to low and moderate income citizens. This objective can be achieved through a variety of production means: (1) fully subsidized or mixed income projects; (2) market-rate projects with inclusionary low and moderate income components; (3) special projects, employing UDAG or other funds; and (4) off-site linkage units. Table 2, while not representing a definitive housing plan or development agreement, demonstrates, neverthe- less, that the 30% goal- is attainable even during this period of scarce Federal funding for affordable housing. Linkage funds could be used to subsidize the supply and/or demand side of, rental housing or to subsidize homeownership. This latter mechanism, homeownership, should be the pre- ferred goal of Harborpark since it would allow Harborpark citizens to share in the inevitable property value appreciation along the Harbor. Another mechanism for accommodating low "Boston's Prospective Development and the Linkage to Housing Needs", Boston Redevelopment Authority Research Department, October, 1983. 35 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Low and Moderate Linkage Total Project Units Units Units Low/Mod 1. Charlestown 112 112 112 Bldg. 103 2. Lincoln Wharf 190 3. Lincoln Wharf 11 50 - 12* 12 4. Sargent's Wharf 185 36 - 36 5. Fan Pier 1'.000 50* 90* 140 6. Columbia Point 1,400 800 - 800 Redevelopment 7. Rowes & Fosters 310 - 63 63 8. Lewis Wharf 80 8 17* 25 TOTALS 3, 327 1,006 182 1,188 These figures represent minimum estimates. and moderate income residents could be the use of linkage funds for off-site construction. @ In this context such funds could be used to help renovate housing units near or along the waterfront. Whatever the mechanism, Harborpark stands for two principles: Boston's substantial housing needs dictate that housing con- struction and rehabilitation should be encouraged along the Harbor, and 30% of such housing should be available to low and moderate income citizens. TRANSPORTATION Harborpark is designed to get people out of their cars., o n to their feet, on to boats, and on to mass transit. The seven miles of continuous walkway will provide an attractive connec- tion for the many uses in the waterfront/downtown area. The walkway will become a transportation route for the many people living, visiting, and working in Harborpark. 36 In designing Harborpark, special attention must be given to water transportation. The goal is to triple the number of passengers now using commuter boats and water taxis. Congestion will be reduced by the replacement of automobile trips. Ferry terminals will be located at the Fan Pier, Rowes Wharf, Long Wharf, Sargent's Wharf, and in the Charlestown Navy Yard. Boats will provide transportation to and from East Boston, the Airport, Columbia Point, Squantum, and other South Shore communities. Efforts will be made to provide connections to Revere, Nahant, and other North Shore communities. New marinas will be constructed and required to provide a certain percentage of their spaces for visiting boats. In addition, the Harbormaster will designate moorings for short- term use. Nearby piers will provide landing places for dinghys so that people can get from their boats to the shore. These new marinas will be located at the Fan Pier, Old Northern Avenue Bridge, Rowes & Fosters Wharves, Sargent's Wharf, T Wharf (adjacent to Long Wharf) and in the Charlestown Navy Yard. Most of the area through which Harborpark winds makes up the oldest part of Boston. Streets are narrow and congested, parking is limited and always a problem. As a result, special attention is given to the provision of mass transit and auto- mobile parking. Four MBTA stations are in close proximity to Harborpark. Special signage and maps will be provided showing the connections from the stations to Harborpark and its various amenities. Four thousand new off-street parking spaces, as part of new development projects, will be located with easy access to Harborpark. In addition to the major parking facilities already planned for North and South Stations, large scale parking are proposed for the Fan Pier and the Charlestown Shipyard. In each of these four areas, cars will be parked before they enter the downtown/waterfront area. Other facilities are included in the design of Sargent's and Rowes & Fosters Wharves. Drivers who today sit in their cars for the 20 minute last mile of their trip to Boston will be able to use offstreet parking and shift to water taxis for a relaxing 5 minute trip to a site no further from their destination than they would park today. Carefully designed and located parking garages and mass transit terminals (including Commuter Boat and Water Taxi terminals) will support the user who makes the wise decision to avoid the use of cars in this congested area. 37 TAX REVENUES The City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Federal Government would all benefit through tax revenues that would be generated by Harborpark projects. The State and Federal governments would gain the lion's share of the tax benefits. These revenues will contribute to the economic health of the City, State, and Nation, helping to build and maintain infrastructure, and provide monies for the main- tenance and servicing of public needs and places. A. Revenues Generated to the City Property Tax The Harborpark, project will generate an estimated $150 million in additional property tax revenues to the City over the six year 1984-90 period. These additional property tax revenues would help allow the City of Boston to provide increased Police, Fire, Public Works and other City services which are sorely needed, and currently overburdened. The annual projected property tax yield of selected major projects along would be $13 million. Annual Property Tax Revenues for Projects Selected Project AREA 1 Fan Pier $ 8,370,000 AREA 2 Rowes and Fosters 1,432,000 Commercial Wharf 342,300 Lewis Wharf 619,600- Sargent's Wharf 899,680 AREA 3 Lincoln Wharf 472,000 AREA 4 City Square/Waterfront 720,000 TOTAL $12,855,580 Developmen t Impact Project Payments, Development Impact Project payments of selected major Harborpark commercial projects will be $5,575,000 over a twelve, year period. These payments could be used to construct affordable rental housing. The following table estimates the linkage benefits from the Harborpark developments. Commercial Total Square Linkage Projec Footage Contribution Fan Pier 500,000 $ 2,000,000 Rowes Wharf 415,000 1,575,000 Lewis Wharf 200,000 500,000 Sargent's Wharf 300,000 1,000,000 City Square 200,000 500,000 TOTAL 1,615,000 $ 5,575,000 All figures are estimates based on developers' plans, and are subject to change. B. Revenues Generated to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Harborpark developments would generate $450 million in tax revenues to the State in the six year period 1984-90. The composition of the projected growth in State revenus is as follows: Source* Amount % Income Tax $211,000,000 47 Sales Tax 63,000,000 14 Hotel Tax 36,000,000 8 Meals Tax 32,000,000 7 Corporate Tax 108,000,000 24 C. Revenues to the Federal Government The Federal government would gain an estimated $1 billion in income and corporate tax revenue over the six years, 1984-90. "Impact of Boston Capital Construction Freeze on Jobs and Tax Revenues", Boston Redevelopment Authority, Research Department, April, 1981.. 39 CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL BENEFITS Through public access and design guidelines, Harborpark will restore to those neighborhoods Boston's most attractive natural feature, the Harbor. Developers will be attracted by Harborpark's natural amenities, and will,, in turn, pay for high quality construction and maintenance of additional ameni- ties for the enjoyment of all Bostonians. The amenities thus created will provide cultural and recreational attractions not now available in Boston, and will include the following: Major Public Facilities Museums will be created including an archaeology museum, and an historical ships museum. Existing attractions, such as the USS Constitution, the Charles River Dam public exhibit, and the New England Aquarium, which already attract year- round, crowds, will be further strengthened by the addition of new activity centers such as a bandstand and Tall Ships dock. At least five new harborviews will be constructed, one of which will be an 8th floor observation deck. At least five new public and commuter docks and marinas at Sargent's Wharf, Rowes and Fosters Wharves, T Wharf, and Hoosac and Fan Piers will be constructed or renovated, greatly improving the existing shortage of public marina space in the Boston Harbor. These attractions will be united with parks, family recreational areas, and enclosed public cafes by the seven mile harborwalk. Public amenities, parkland and activity centers are delineated in Table 3; they total 1,903,265 square feet, or 43.7 acres, of improved public space. This is a double benefit to the City, in that City funds are not required to construct or maintain these improvements. Construction costs paid by private and non-municipal public sectors total $76,480,000. The City will also be relieved of maintenance, thus saving the City an estimated $122,360 per year.* Boston residents and visitors will have easy access to these cultural and recreational amenities through Harborpark's intermodal transportation network. This system will integrate land, air and water transportation to capitalize on the Harbor's geographic configuration, thus relieving some of the current burden of auto and subway modes. Figures derived from Fiscal 1985 budget, City of Boston, Raymond L. Flynn. 40 Public Benefits From Proposed Development Projects An important characteristic of the new development projects.in Harborpark will be that they will reclaim the waterfront for recreational purposes. The following development projects will include a variety of benefits for the residents of Boston, reflecting a heightened public awareness in project planning. 1. The Fan Pier Project would produce as much as $18 million in public improvements, including large public parks, a marina and public taxi dock. A major element will be the tree shaded Harborwalk, providing access to the water's edge, and dramatic view corridors to the Harbor. 2. The New Northern Avenue Bridge construction will provide a reliable transportation link from the Interstate System to industrial development activities at Boston Marine Industrial Park, Commonwealth Pier and the Fish 'Pier. This will relieve truck traffic congestion from the residential areas of South Boston. The new bridge will continue the Harborwalk across Fort Point Channel, and represent $11 million in public improvements. 3. The Historic Northern Avenue Bridge is the existing bridge, swung open and rehabilitated as a public dock and boating supply store. It will represent $800,000 in public improvements. 4. Rowes & Fosters Wharves will create over $2 million worth of public improvements, including an eighth floor Harborview deck, a domed central court with cafe, a public dock with commuter boat terminal, and a continua- tion of the Harborwalk. 5. The India Wharf project will incorporate a continuation of the Harborwalk along the edge of Harbor Towers. This will represent a privately funded contribution of $300,000. Outdoor art already exists in this, portion of Harborwalk. 6. The Aquarium has existing amenities, including a public seating area, seal pool, public sculpture and dolphin show. Additional privately funded improvements will be incorporated into this popular attraction. 7. The Long Wharf and T Wharf projects will contain $18.7 million in public improvements. The restored Harbor Islands. terminal on Long Wharf will provide docking facilities for water taxis, harbor ferries, and pleasure boats. Pier head improvements at T Wharf include an exhibit of Harbor artifacts and historic ships. 41 8. The Walk-to-the-Sea includes a public walkway through Marketplace Center connecting an improved Waterfront Park. Marketplace Center public amenities will include the $300,000 landscaped walkway, a $175,000 archaeology museum, and a $700,000 pedestrian ization of a portion of Commercial Street, all privately.funded. Waterfront Park is slated for a new bandstand, benches and trees, a $265,000 improvement. 9. Commercial Wharf is a $11.4 million private development investment. This development will contribute public ,open space improvements and will be an appropriate site for a Wintergarden. 10. Lewis Wharf will provide a continuation of the Harborwalk at the pier heads and possibly a historic ship museum, allowing a view of the Harbor. These privately funded amenities could total over $2 million. 11. Pilot House includes a Harborview and public seating. Current amenities include public acces-s to the water's. edge. 12. Sargent's Wharf development offers a 300,000 square foot opportunity for mixed income housing, office, retail, and parking. Development investment is projected at over $3.8 million dollars and could produce substantial public amenities, including a public boat landing and marina, harbor taxi landings, waterfront viewing area, and a continuation of the Harborwalk. The public amenity contribution is estimated at $4.7 million. 13. Union Wharf is planned to include a continuation of the Harborwal k, projected at $860,000, to be privately funded. 14. Lincoln Wharf/Fireboat Pier includes the San Marco Housing Corporation's conversion of the old MBTA power plant to 190 units of moderate income condominiums. Included here is an additional 50,000 square foot oppor- tunity for housing at the Coal Pocket Building as well as opportunities for additional public open space. Public amenities will include a Tall Ships and public dock, as well as a Harborview. These privately funded improve- ments are estimated at $3.5 million. Also proposed is a Maritime Museum, representing a private sector contri- bution of $250,000. The private sector will also recon- struct Battery Street, allowing -landscaped access to the Fire Boat Pier, worth $160,000. 42 15. Battery Wharf is the last working pier on the downtown waterfront, with a lobster pound, and fish and produce dealers. A public viewing area, and continuation of the Harborwalk, will be privately funded, costing $250,000. (Funding sources to be identified.) 16. Constitution Wharf is proposed to include a continuation of the HarborwalT, and construction of a public viewing area; this work is estimated at $290,000. 17. The North End Playground includes swimming pools, baseball fields, boccie courts, tennis courts, playing fields and a hockey rink. Renovations to the playing fields is estimated at $610,000. (Funding sources to be identified. ) 18. The Charles River Dam Area will include a continuation of the Harborwalk connecting the Paul Revere Landing in Charlestown to the North End Playground. The Dam, designed as a flood control project, provides viewing of locks, fish ladders, an observation bridge, and public exhibit and slide show of the dam. Harborwalk improve- ments are estimated at $600,000. (Funding sources to be identified. 19. The Charlestown City Square/Rapids Warehouse DevelopLnent inclu s a development opportunity at the Rapids Wharf of $24 million. The project will generate 320 construc- tion jobs, 830 permanent jobs, and $720,000 in property tax revenues. Public amenities of this project include a continuation of the Harborwalk, privately funded at $200,000. 20. Hoosac Pier continues the Harborwalk, with the project being privately funded at $350,000. 21. Charlestown Shipyard Park includes the USS Constitution and the decommissioned Navy destroyer, Cassin Young. The public marina includes access to the waterfront, and 400 feet of docking space; the private marina provides slips for 550 boats, 50 of which are for public docking. Improvements here have been budgeted at $3.5 million. Other Related Benefits Dorchester Beaches Harborpark will be important to providing public access along the waterfront and linkage to other recreational areas of Boston, such as the Malibu and Tenean beaches in Dorchester. - 43 This linkage will be further extended as future public bikeways and walkways will connect the beach areas with marshes along the Neponset River. Public Sailing Harborpark will provide additional opportunities for public sailing -- a favorite recreational sport of Boston residents. As a result, this sport currently concentrated on the Charles River and the Charles River Basin will be enjoyed in other areas of Boston's Inner Harbor, making possible its integra- tion with other recreational and cultural activities offered at Harborpark. Harbor Islands Harborpark will open up many opportunities for linkages. between Boston and its Harbor Islands. The new transporta- tion facilities along Harborpark, including commute r/excu rs ion boat/water-taxi terminals and public marinas, will facilitate access to the Harbor Islands and greatly expand the variety of recreational space that will be enjoyed by Boston residents. Charles River Harborpark will link to.the Charles River Esplanade -- an existing public open space along the Charles River. As a result, pedestrian movement will be facilitated between the cultural and recreational events which already take place along the Esplanade and those events which will be included in Harborpark. 44 TABLE 3 PROJECTS WHERE MAJOR PUBLIC AMENITIES ARE ADDED Square Feet Activities Scheduled Project Added Added Completion Fan Pier 688,725 Marina 1987-89 Water Taxi Dock Housing New Northern Avenue 19,925 Landscaped Park 1987-89 Historic Northern 46,875 Public Dock 1981-89 Avenue Bridge Marina Observation Tower Rowes & Fosters 43,750 Boat Terminal 1985-87 Wharf Observation Tower Long Wharf/T Wharf 256,400 Boat Docks 1984-85 Major Park 1987-89 Historical Exhibit Walk-to-the-Sea gog, 000 Bandstand 1984-85 Commercial Wharf 17,920 Maritime Museum 1987-89 Public Dock Lewis Wharf 37,880 Wintergarden 1987-89 Aviary Pilot House 10,000 Harborview 1985-87 Sargent's Wharf 82,100 Water Tax.i Dock Public Boat Dock 1985-87 Housing Lincoln Wharf 40,990 Fireboat Pier 1985-87 Tall Ship Dock 1985-87 Maritime Museum Battery Wharf 24,000 Harborview 1985-87 Constitution Wharf, 27,500 Harborview 1984-85 Charlestown City 50,000 Harborview 1984-85. Square/Rapids Marina Warehouse Develop. Charlestown 348,200 Major Path 1985-87 Shipyard Park Park TOTAL or 1,903,265 .43.7 acres 4S TABLE 4 POPULATION AND HOUSING UNITS FOR HARBORPARK NEIGHBORHOODS 1980 Housing Neighborhood Areas Population Units (5) Charlestown/Medford St., The Neck 3,770 1,607 (6) Charlestown/Thompson Sq., Bunker 9,594 Hill, Town Hill, Monument (8) North Dorchester/Columbia Point, 12,680 6,096 Savin Hill, Columbia (15) South Dorchester/ Fields Corner 2,111 927 East (18) South Dorchester/Neponset, Port 8,317 2,946 Norfol k (23) East Boston/Central and Maverick 7,811 3,922 Squares, Paris Street (24) East Boston/Eagle Hill 9,305 4,085 (25) East Boston/Harbor Viewl Orient 9,755 3,994 Heights (26) East Boston/Jeffries Pt., Airport 5,307 2,562 (32) Boston Harbor Islands/Crews of 1,748 1 Vessels (48) North End/Waterfront 10,859 6,168 (56) South Boston/City Point 8,658 3,827 (57) South Boston/Columbus Park, 6,736 3,222 Andrew Square (58) South Boston/D Street, West 6,319 3,307 Broadway, Northern Section (60) South Boston/Telegraph Hill 8,683 31702 Total Harborpark 111,653 50,881 Total City of Boston 562,994 241,444 Harborpark as a Percentof Boston 19.8% 21.1% Source: U.S. Census of Populations and Housing, 1980. 46 TABLE 5 HARBORPARK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INVESTMENTS Costs of Public Improvement Public Private Development Projects Sector Sector Investment 1. Fan Pier $ $18,560,000 $279,000,000 2. New Northern Ave. Br. 11,000,000 3. Historic N. Ave. Br. 800,000 TOTAL AREA 1 $11,800,000 $18,560,000 $279,000,000 4. Rowes and Fosters $ $ 2,130,000 $ 56,760,000 5. India Wharf 120,000 6. Aquarium 700,000 7. Long Wharf/T Wharf 18,700,000 8. Walk-to-the-Sea 265,000. 1,175,000 9. Commercial Wharf 21800,000 11,410,000 10. Lewis Wharf 170,000 2,240,000 23,600.000 11. Pilot House 12. Sargent's Wharf 4,660,000, 38,240,000 13. Union Wha.rf 860,000 TOTAL AREA 2 $23,795,006 $10,025,000 $130,010,000 14. Lincoln Wharf $ $ 3,500,00 $ 17,650,000 15. Battery Wharf 250,000 16. Constitution Wharf 290,000 17. North End Playgrounds 610,000 TOTAL AREA 3 $ 900,000 $ 3,750,000 17,650,000 18. Charles River Dam Area$ 600,000 $ $ 19. City Square/Waterfront 200,000 24,000,000 20. Hoosac Pier 350,000 21. Shipyard Park 3,500,000 TOTAL AREA 4. $ 4,100,000 $ 550,000 $ 24,000,000 TOTAL $40,595,000 $32,885,000 $450,660,000 47 Citizen Participation 4 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Decisions affecting the future of the Boston Harbor area require the participation of numerous government agencies, diverse interests from the private sector, and, most of all, the people who live in Boston's neighborhoods. The ultimate success of Harborpark, the translation of ideas and plans to reality, depends in great measure on establishing a process that assures citizen participation. The subtitle of this document, "A Framework for Planning Discussion", says as clearly and unequivocally as possible that the Harborpark concept is simply the start of a community discussion and exchange of views among a broad spectrum of groups and individuals. Citizen participation is the very heart of Harborpark. Our,goal is to establish a new standard for successful community involvement. Citizens will help pu blic officials make hard choices about Harbor related development and zoning policies while reviewing specific project improvements. Citizen participation in Harborpark will be structured so that community representa- tives consider broad topics, such as transportation, infra- stucture, economic development and land use patterns, as well as specific development proposals. This document presents ideas and concepts that set the boundaries for the planning discussions which will follow. While the document provides direction and basic principles, the citizen participation process will examine and redefine Harborpark into a comprehensive plan. To do so success- fully, the process must be public, open and fair. The first step toward guaranteeing an open and fair process is creating a Citizen Advisory Committee for Harborpark. The Harborpark Advisory Committee The Harborpark Advisory Committee will consist of fifteen persons appointed by the Mayor. Five of the members will represent governmental agencies concerned with the protection and development of the Harbor. ' Five will represent community groups concerned with the five Harborpark residential neighbor- hoods (East Boston, Charlestown, North End-Inner Harbor, South Boston, and Dorchester). The remaining five will be individuals who have demonstrated special concern for Boston Harbor and its importance to the City.; they will represent the public at large. 40 These fifteen people will advise the Mayor and the Boston Redevelopment Authority on all matters concerning Harborpark and Harbor related policies. They will review reports and proposals from BRA staff, as well as from developers and community and environmental groups. A major function of the Advisory Committee will be to review and make- recommendations concerning the rezoning of the. Harbor's edge, running from Chelsea Creek in the north to Neponset in the south. The rezoning portion of the planning exercise will be completed by December, 1985. Additional responsibilities will include monitoring inter-governmental activities and participating in the development of Harborpark Phase One. During the interim zoning period, the Committee will be responsible for developing the list of approved and dis- approved uses for the overlay district. As part of this process, it will review development projects submitted to the City which require approval under the interim zoning regula- tions. The Advisory Committee will assure that the process for controlling development throughout the Harborpark areas balances the concerns of neighborhoods, private investors, and government agencies. This comprehensive process will produce a plan which provides for balanced growth and public access in Harborpark. Existing Advisory Committees A number of citizen advisory committees are currently involved with Harbor related planning and projects. The Advisory Committee will not replace these committees or other commit- tees which may be established from time to time to advise on specific projects. The Advisory Committee will develop a close working relationship with existing and newly created project advisory committees, and bring to discussions of local projects a wider view of Harbor issues. Maintain,ing the balance between the vital work of the project committees and the broader perspective of the Advisory Committee will be a critical part of the Harbor planning process. Preliminary Implementation Schedule Throughout the planning process, issues which arise will be communicated to the community at large by newsletters and the media. Documents produced for each of the topics and study areas will be distributed throughout the community. 49 Time Table The following preliminary schedule should set the citizen participation process in motion. Harborpark Phase One Months 1- 4 - Public meetings and agreement on detailed goals Months 5-11 - Drawing specific plans for Harborpark Months 12-15 - Establishing parcel guidelines and implementation agreements Coordination of Government Agencies Months 1- 4 - Public meetings and agreement on Harbor goals Months 5-11 - Detailing Harbor management plans Months 12-15 - Establishing inter-agency agreements Re-zoning - Months 1- 4 - Public meetings and agreement on. goals for each study area Months 5-11 - Detailing zoning revisions and a second set of public meetings for review Months 12-15 - Adoption of zoning amendments so Cn I% I. S _4 fit- @:@- V-'T, ZONING Zoning is the most effective land use control available to Boston. Effective zoning is a valuable planning tool and an instrument of economic development. By defining appropriate locations for various uses, zoning encourages beneficial development and limits the public costs of growth. EXISTING ZONING Boston's Zoning Code was adopted in December, 1964. Since that time, major physical, economic and demographic changes have occurred in the City. The area that has been most critically affected by these changes is the waterfront. As a result of the decline of shipping in this region, the demand for waterfront space from water-dependent industrial users has decreased. One third of the land bordering Boston Harbor (excluding Logan Airport) is now vacant. The 1964 Harbor zoning mainly codified then-existing indus- trial uses. Many of these uses are now considered unaccept- able. For example, certain industrial uses along the Harbor not only degrade water quality with hazardous chemicals, they also make adjacent properties unpleasant to use and undesir- able to develop. In Charlestown, scrap metal is stored in open space on the Harbor's edge, and highly noxious uses have been proposed adjacent to residential areas. In Dorchester, next to the Port Norfolk residential areaj a large paper company which has stored toxic substances for several years is moving out, but a similarly undesirable use could, under the existing Zoning Code, replace the outgoing use. The table below describes the permitted uses under the existing zoning designations. Table 1 EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS - SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES Zone Name and Permitted Uses W-2 Waterfront Industrial: Industrial uses allowed "if waterfront activity is required for receipt or dispatch of goods or for any other reason; other- wise conditional".* Multi-family and temporary dwellings are conditional; all other residential uses are forbidden. Most commercial and business Boston Zoning Code 8-7,66. WATERFRONT OVERLAY PLANNING DISTRICT -/7 ?o STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES 1 INNER HARBOR 2 sourm sosToN PIERS 3 DORCHESTER BAY BEACHES 4 CHARLESTOWN WATERFRONT 5 EAST BOSTON WATERFRONT Zone Name and Permitted Uses W-2 uses are conditional. W-2 currently covers more. (con't) land on the waterfront than any other zoning designation. H Residential, Apartments: All residential uses are. allowed except lodging houses., which are condi- tional: All retail, business uses are conditional or forbidden: All industrial uses are forbidden. B Retail Business and Office: All residential uses and most office, retail and business uses are allowed: Most industrial uses are forbidden in B-1, B-2, and B-4, and conditional in B-8 and B-10. M-1, M-2 Light Manufacturing: Most light manufacturing, industrial, retail, business, and office uses are allowed. One and two family houses are forbidden; multi-family dwellings are conditional; heavy industrial uses are forbidden. General Manufacturing: Residential uses are forbidden except some group care residences, which are conditional: Most other uses are condi- tional or allowed. R-.5, R-.8 Two/Three Family Residential: Single family and multi-family dwellings are allowed: Some institu- tional uses are allowed: Most commercial and all manufacturing and industrial uses are forbidden. PROPOSED ZONING In order to change the pattern of waterfront use, to encour- age and at the same time control Harbor redevelopment, Boston must rezone its waterfront. Zoning revisions should be the product of a comprehensive planning process, and citizen participation must be the foundation of such a pro- cess. Thus rezoning the waterfront will take time. Over the next year, a comprehensive planning process for the waterfront will be initiated. During the planning period we must guard against introduction of land uses that would be incompatible with the land use goals and revised zoning designations that will evolve from the planning process. In order to establish adequate safeguards, the Boston Zoning Commission will be petitioned to establish an Interim Overlay Planning District designation in the Boston Zoning Code. The Interim Overlay Planning District will, until December 31, 1985, apply to the Boston waterf ront. 53 vs .31L two .@@gD ac z m rn The Interim Overlay Planning District will consist of five planning areas. These areas, their general planning goals, and existing zoning are described below: Area 1: Inner Harbor Waterfront o The downtown waterfront is generally defined by a line running from the east side of Hoosac Pier in Charlestown along Water Street to the new Charles River Dam along Commercial Street and Atlantic Avenue; along the north side of the Fort Point Cha@nel to West Second Street; West Second Street to B Street; and northeast to Pier 4. o The general goals for this area are public access and mixed use commercial, residential, and recreational activities that make the transition from downtown activi- ties to water-dependent and water-enhanced uses. No structures other than those which facilitate, public access and recreation use should be built at the water's edge. Heights should be no greater than two stories at the Harbor's edge. Inland heights should step up gradually toward downtown Boston. o Existing zoning includes: a) light manufacturing (M-2, M-4) b) retail business and office (B-8, B-8-U) c) waterfront industrial (W-2) Area 11: South Boston Piers � This area is bounded generally by a line from Pier 4 southwest to West Second Street and along East Second Street to Farragut Road. � The general goals for this area are increased public access, and mixed use commercial, residential and indus- trial activities that are compatible with the adjacent residential areas, and that improve the connection between the Harbor and the land. No structures should be built at the water's edge, and the structures closest to the water should be no higher than two stories, step- ping up to four stories inland. � Existing zoning includes: a) waterfront industrial (W-2) b) general manufacturing (1-2) c) light manufacturing (M-2. M-8) 55 In. 9s co AV 16 co 0 Cl) 0 z Area I 11: Dorchester Bay Beaches o This area is generally bou ,nded by Castle Island, and ends at Granite Avenue on the Neponset River below the Port Norfolk area of Dorchester. o The general goals for this area are retaining and enhan-. cing the open space, parks, and beaches along the Harbor, promoting residential uses, and protecting the residential areas from industrial intrusion and impacts. No structures other than for public recreational use should be built near the water, and heights in this planning area should be limited to three stories. o Existing zoning includes: a) two and three family dwellings (R-.5, R-.8) b) residential apartments (H-1, H-2) c) general business and office (B-1) d) light manufacturing (M-1) e) general manufacturing (1-1) f) waterfront industrial (W-2) Area IV: Charlestown Waterfront � This area is generally bounded by the east side of Hoosac Pier, Water Street, Chelsea Street, and Medford Street to Sullivan Square; Sullivan Square northwest on Mystic Avenue to the Somerville line. � The general goals for this area are promoting public access, mixed-use residential and commercial activities in the Charlestown Navy Yard, mixed-use commercial and compatible water-dependent manufacturing activities with near-by residential areas, and providing employment opportunities for the community. No structure other than those which facilitate public access and recreation, or which are necessary for. water-dependent and maritime uses, should be built at the water's edge, and no struc- ture greater than two stories should be. built in this area. � Existing zoning includes: a) waterfront industrial (W-2) b) retail business and office (B-1, B-1-U) c) residential apartments (H-1-U, H-2-U) d) light manufacturing (M-1-U) 57 W-l Ito. fil Ir Z1@ DORCHESTER BAY BEACHES GENERAt-STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES S8 69 Aw 41b 4%b- CL mn 0 Area V: East Boston Waterfront o This area- is generally bounded by Chelsea Street from the Chelsea River to East Eagle Street; East Eagle Street to Conclor.Street; Condor Street to Falcon Street; Falcon Street; to Meridian Street to London Street; London Street to Maverick Street; Maverick Street to Harve Street; Karve Street to Summer Street; Summer Street to Orleans Street; Orleans Street to Webster Street; Webster Street to Summer Street and east to Maverick Street; Maverick Street to Logan Airport. o The general goals for this area are creating and inte- grating a compatible mix of water-dependent, water- related, and water-enhanced uses including housing, commerce, recreation and open spaces, and public access to and from the water. Buildings nearest the water should not exceed two stories, and heights should step up inland but should not exceed three stories. o The existing zoning includes: a) waterfront industrial (W-2); b) light manufacturing (M-1, M-2). INTERIM EXCLUDED USES All existing residen tial uses in the Interim Overlay Planning District will be entirely exempt from its controls. All other changes in use or buildings within the Interim Overlay Planning District will be subject to review and approval as explained below. Changes in use must conform with the goals and objectives of Harborpark which will be further defined in the public planning process. In the interim, the following uses are excluded: Area 1: Inner Harbor Waterf ront - All general manufacturing and heavy industrial uses including all uses which are objectionable or offensive because of special danger or hazard, or because of cinders, dust, smoke, refuse matter, flashing, fumes or gases. - All wholesale and distribution warehousing. - All open storage of junk, chemicals, equipment or vehicles. - All motor freight terminal uses. Area 11: South Boston Piers All uses which are objectionable or offensive because of special danger or hazard, or because of cinders, dust, smoke, refuse matter, flashing, fumes and gases. 60 v ou U oo L I Ar ST BOSTON WATERFRONT--,@ 61 O"tr%w AftVA Area 111: Dorchester Bay Beaches All general manufacturing and heavy industrial uses including all uses which are objectionable or offensive because of special danger or hazard, .or because of cinders, dust, smoke, refuse matter, flashing, fumes and gases. All wholesale and distribution warehousing. All open storage and storage of junk, chemicals, equipment or vehicles. All general business and commercial uses other than those associated with residential uses. Area I V: Charlestown Waterfront - All heavy industrial uses including all uses which are objectionable or offensive because of special danger or hazard, or because of cinders, dust, smoke, refuse matter, flashing, fumes or gases. - All open storage of junk, chemicals, equipment or vehicles. Area V: East Boston Waterfront All general manufacturing and heavy industrial uses including all uses which are objectionable or offensive because of special danger or hazard, or because of cinders, dust, smoke, refuse matter, flashing, fumes or gases. All open storage and storage of junk, chemicals, equipment or vehicles. All motor freight terminal uses. PROCEDURES The Interim Overlay Planning District ordinance will be devel- oped with citizen participation, as explained in the previous section. The ordinance will be introduced this month. Any applicant for a building. or change-in-use permit related to non-residential property, within the Interim Overlay Planning District, will have to receive an Interim Planning Permit from the Board of Appeal before the Inspectional Services Department can issue the requested permit. The Inspectional Services Department must determine if an Interim Planning Permit is required by any application for change-in-use or bu.ilding permits. if so, the application will be denied and forwarded to the Board of Appeal and the Boston Redevelopment Authority. 62 The Boston Redevelopment Authority, acting as Ahe City's planning agency must, within ninety days, report to the Board of Appeals whether or not the proposed action is consistent with the planning goals for the overlay district, with the comprehensive planning process, and with contem- plated land uses. The Board of Appeals will not, in any case, hold a hearing or make a decision on the appeal until it has received a report from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, unless the Redevelopment Authority has not issued its recommendation within the required ninety days. In order to issue an Interim Planning Permit, the Board of Appeal must find that the proposed action is consistent with the land use objectives of the Interim Overlay District, and that the proposed changes will not adversely affect the com- prehensive planning process. 63 U D* Eal R E rl 11 rl rl tj F -j fil.M M U I-- ID R El 9 P L R-: Tj r-1 0 J3 q p D L jVjUXUUJ;)AOVJ;)jUj INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Developing a plan for. Boston Harbor would not be possible without careful consideration of the roles, responsibilities, and activities of the many government agencies, commissions, and authorities that have jurisdiction over some aspect of the Harbor. A study of Boston Harbor by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sea Grant program found over 100 government actors on Harbor issues.* That report listed lack of coordination as one of the most serious problems preventing optimal development and utilization of the Harbor. Since that time new initiatives such as the Legislature's Special Commission on Boston Harbor have improved intergovernmental communication and coordination' somewhat, but many problems remain. In addition to regulating activity on and around the Harbor, government agencies are major investors in projects which affect the Harbor and the surrounding communities. Federal, State, and local agencies have programmed approximately three billion dollars for capital improvements around Boston Harbor. The largest portion of these funds are for land transportation projects (Central Artery Depression, Third Tunnel, Seaport Access Road), sewage treatment and water quality improvements, and development of the Harbor Island. State Park and related mainland transportation terminals. Public investment of this magnitude will draw substantial private investment to the Harbor. The agencies involved must closely coordinate their activities to make sure that maximum public benefit is squeezed from every dollar, public or private, invested in the Harbor. The Harborpark planning process will involve relevant govern- ment agencies at both the staff and executive levels. Five spaces on the Advisory Committee are reserved for representa- tives of Harbor-related agencies and authorities. In this way, Harborpark projects will start from a base of cooperation and coordination with funding and permitting agencies at the regional, State and Federal levels. Kildow, Judeth T., et al, Boston Harbor Management Study, MIT SC 81-15, MIT, MIT Sea Grant College Program. 64 PROPOSED PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN BOSTON HARBOR COMPLETION USE & ACTIVITY AGENCY COST EST. DATE TRANSPORTATION 3rd. Harbor Tunnel DPW $ 1,000,000,000 1994 Seaport Access Road DPW $ 400,000,000 1994 Depression of Central Artery DPW $1,000,000,000 1998 Northern Ave. Bridge DPW $ 14,000,000 1988 Water Taxi Private 1985 SUB-TOTAL $2,414,000,000 WATER AND SEWER Ft. Pt. Channel C&D Station MDC $ 54,550,000 Unfunded Reserve Channel C&D Station MDC $ 5,314,000 Unfunded East Boston CSO Program MDC $ 20,386,000 Unfunded Court Ordered Harbor Clean-up MDC $1,100,000,000 Unfunded CSO Improvements BOS/ W&S $ 5,485,000 Unfunded East Side & Main BOS/ I nterceptors W&S $ 66,500,000 Unfunded SUB-TOTAL $1,252,235,000 PARKS & RECREATION Harbor Islands State DEM/ Park MDC $ 34,310,000 2005 Castle Island Improvements MDC $ 5,400,000 1986 Dredging of Boat Water- Channels Ways $ 5,000,000 1986 SUB-TOTAL $ 44,710,000 PORT IMPROVEMENTS Conley Terminal Massport $ 18,000,000 New Marine Terminal (@BMIP) Massport $ 80,000,000 Fish Pier Renova- tions Massport $ 18,000,000 Coast Guard Base Upgrading C.G. SUB-TOTAL $ 116,000,000 TOTAL $3,826,945,000 6S LAND AND WATER USE CONTROLS Local Involvement Along the Boston waterfront, land use decisions are the sole purview of the City of Boston, except where the site is under the control of another specifically authorized level of govern- ment, such as Commonwealth Commissions (MDC) or Authorities (Massport). Water use and management decisions involve Commonwealth and Federal agencies, as well as the. City of Boston.. Federal Involvement Federal interest in water use regulation focuses on three issues, only two.of which are germane to Boston Harbor. These are protection of the navigational characteristics of coastal waters, and improvement and protection of water, quality. Although there are many Federal laws affecting. coastal water management and water use.clecisions, seven, pertain in parti- cular to Boston Harbor: � Clear Air Act; � Federal Aviation Act'of 1958; � Federal Water Pollution Control Act; � Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; � National Environmental Policy Act; � Ports and Waterways Safety Act; and � Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. In some cases, management and, control responsibilities have been passed through to the individual States for adminis- tration. In other cases, the authorities are exercised through the issuance of permits (e.g., Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899). Finally, in some cases (e.g., Ports and Waterways Safety Act), the legislated authority has not been fully exercised. For examp le, through the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the U.S. Coast Guard has the allthority to regulate vessel traffic in coastal waters, includ- ing Boston Harbor, but has not yet chosen to exercise that authority. State Involvement State interest in water use regulation centers on three issues: the protection of public trust resources, the improvement and protection of water quality, and the protection of ecologically significant resources. 66 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Federal Involvement At the Federal level there are three separate but coordinated permits, each with its own regulations, that must be obtained before developing projects in or adjacent to Boston Harbor. These are: 1. Section 10 Permits control projects proposed for navig- able waters to assure that they do not interfere with navigation and that they live up to certain design. and environmental standards; 2. Section 404 Permits control the effect that a proposed development has.on the quality of the water; and 3. Section 103 Permits control the transport and discharge of dredged materials into coastal waters. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers serves as the lead agency for -issuing these permits. State Involvement There are seven separate sets of State regulations that must be complied with, prior to developing projects on Boston Harbor. These include: 1. Waterways Licenses to protect the Commonwealth's interest in the public trust resources (submerged lands or tide- lands) that would be affected by any proposed development; 2. Consistency Approval assures that the proposed develop- ment is. consistent with the policies of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Plan; 3. MEPA Approval assures that the proposed development does not adversely effect the environment as set forth for in the Massachusetts Environmental Policy-Act; 4. Water Quality Certificates protect the quality of coastal waters; 5. NPDES Permits control the discharge of pollutants into coastal waters; 6. Dredging Permits control the disposal of dredged materials so that they will not injure water quality, degrade the environment, or harm public health; and 67 PERMITS REQUIRED BY LOCATION Shore Pie rhead inland Line Line Harbor Planned Development Area Approval Chapter 121A Proposal App roval Section 10 Permit Section 103 Permit Section 404 Permit Waterways License NPDES Permit Water Quality Certificate Dredging Permit Consistency Approval Wetlands Protection Act Permit Permit for Floats and Moorings Approval for Floats and Rafts MEPA Approval Sewer Extension Permit Municipal Service Connection Permit Cross-Connection Permit Runoff Discharge Permit Utility Installation Permit Roadway/Sidewa.lk Construction Permit Municipal Water Service Permit Water and Sewer Permits Building Permits Permit to StoreFlammable Liquids Curb Cut Permits 60, .7. Sewer Extension Permits certify that the existing system .of.sewers is adequate to accommodate the anticipated sewage increase. The Massachusetts Department ef Environmental Quality Engineering serves as the lead agency for the permits, license, and certificate listed above and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs serves as the lead agency for the two approvals.. Local Involvement in addition to,-zoning approval, there are two separate sets of local regulations that must be complied with, prior to developing a project on the Boston waterfront. These are: 1. Wetlands Protection. Act Permits, issued by the Conservation Commission,. protect the public interest in tidelands by preventing damage to water supplies and fishery or shellfish areas, and by preventing increases in flooding, storm damage and pollution. A Wetlands Permit is required for development of property within one hundred feet of the water or in a flood plain; 2. Temporary Float and Mooring Permits, which control the location of certain developments so that they will not interfere with other water uses. This permit is issued by the Harbormaster (a member of the Boston Police Department). COMMISSIONS, AUTHORITIES,, AND AGENCIES In addition to those agencies which regulate development in Boston Harbor, there are agencies and authorities that own or control land and facilities on the Harbor. The Special Commission an Boston Harbor This Commission was established by Chapter 25 of the Acts and Resolves of 1979 to balance the economic, social, and environmental interests related to Boston Harbor. Commission members include representatives from both Houses of the Massachusetts Legislature, representatives from Commonwealth agencies having responsibilities relating to Boston Harbor, appointed member from each of the cities and towns adjacent to the Harbor, and representatives of major water user and interest groups. The Commission meets monthly except during the summer, and serves as a review board for all legislation concerning the,protection and development of Boston Harbor. 69 in its short history, the Commission established priorities for expenditure of dredging funds, resolved disputes on complicated legislative proposals, provided a means for inter-government and citizen -government communication, and generally improved the management of Boston Harbor. The Commission is an important forum for assuring that, in the Harborpark planning process, public and private efforts are coordinated with public decision making. Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) The Metropolitan District Commission is a regional agency responsible for water and sewer services, parks, roadways, and policing in certain parts of the Boston. metropolitan area. As the agency responsible for metropolitan water and sewer service, MDC owns and operates the treatment facilities at Dear and Nut islands in Boston Harbor. These facilities have been a source of major pollution in the Harbor, but efforts to improve these facilities have not proceeded due to lack of funding and organizational difficulties. Legislation has been filed to remove the MDC's water and sewer authority and place the responsibilities in a new Metropolitan Water Resources Authority. This new Authority would have complete responsibility for the court-mandated Harbor cleanup, and authority to sell bonds to finance its activities. The MDC has recently initiated major rehabilitation of its beaches and recreation facilities, from Castle Island to the Neponset River and Mattapan Square. Considerable funds have been spent on rehabilitation efforts, particularly at Fort Independence on Castle Island, and on acquiring the missing links in a continuous pedestrian system along the Dorchester shoreline. Additional funding must be obtained to complete planned improvements for the beaches along the Dorchester and- South Boston shoreline. New waterfront recreation improvements have recently been completed by the MDC in the North End between the Charlestown Bridge and the City of Boston North End Playground. Boston Water and Sewer Commission The Boston Water and Sewer Commission, established by the State Legislature in 1977, oversees water supply and sewer service in the City of Boston. The Commission has embarked on two major construction projects. The New Boston Main and the East Side interceptors will dramatically improve water 70 quality in Fort Point Channel; they are important components in the overall Harbor cleanup program. The second major construction project is the Combined Sewer Outlet Improvement Program, which will greatly reduce dry-weather, sewage flow into the @ Harbor. Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Massport is the.Authority that owns and operates seaports and airports for the Commonwealth. It owns marine terminals in South Boston, East Boston, and Charlestown, the multi- purpose Commonwealth Pier and adjacent Fish Pier in South Boston, and Logan Airport. Massport has been expanding and modernizing its facilities to meet the growing needs of maritime shippers. It is making a $116 million investment in the Port of Boston's future to insure that Boston remains a working seaport. Projects include the following: � The $18 million Conley Terminal container facility; � The $80 million development of the 47 acre Massport Marine Terminal - a multi-purpose cargo facility at the Boston Marine Industrial Park; � The $18 million renovation of historic Boston Fish Pier; � The revitalization of Massport owned property Commonwealth Pier, Hoosac Park, and Bird Island Flats, all of which have pedestrian access to the water; and � A contract with the Boston Redevelopment Authority to prepare a master plan for the reuse of the Massport-owned piers in East Boston (56 acres.on Piers 1-5). Department of Environmental Management (DEM) (Commonwealth Office of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs) The Department of Environmental Affairs is actively involved, as the State's responsible agency, in carrying out the Master Plan for Boston Harbor Islands. Under the mandate of the 1972 Harbor Islands Master Plan, all of the Harbor Islands (with the exception of the City of Boston owned Spectacle and Long Islands, and privately owned Thompson Island) have been acquired by the Commonwealth and preliminary improvements have been made. DEM has entered into a contract for updating the 1972 Master Plan. Work is nearing completion and will be presented to the public within the next few weeks. Prelim inary indications are that DEM will require another $20 million to complete the Master Plan recommendations and to improve the Harbor Islands so that they are accessible to the public. 71 HARBOR ISLANDS STATE PARK COMPLETION LOCATION AGENCY COST EST. DAT E Long Wharf DEM $ 9,000,000 1985-87 Long Island 7,600,000 1985-87 Spectacle Island 13,000,000 1,993-95 Georges Island 1,000,000 1985-87 Hewitts Cove 2 j 000, 000 1985-87 Bumpkin Island 450,000 1996-2005 Gallops Island .460,000 1985-87 Lovells Island 600,000 1996-2005 Rainsford Island 200,000 1996-2005 TOTAL $34,310,000 DEM-is also involved in current waterfront projects. The Long Wharf reconstruction project, for example, is underway with $9 million in State funding. Department of Environmental Quality and Engineering (Division. of Waterways) The Department issues tidelands licenses under Chapter 91 of the Massachusetts General Laws for development projects on Boston Harbor. Under amendments to. the legislation approved last year, new regulations are being promulgated which require public benefits to outweigh public costs for non-water dependent Harbor developments. Enforcement of these new regulations will greatly assist in adding public access and amenities to Harbor related projects. Coastal Zone Management (CZM,) This Federally mandated office is now a separate' Department of the Commonwealth. CZM has developed a planning and management program for coastal development activities. CZM received $17 million to be granted to municipalities for con- struction of marine facilities. Projects of up to one-half million dollars (matched with 50% local- funds) may be funded. Eligible projects include a variety of waterfront improvements, ranging from fishing piers to wharf reconstruction. Final regulations for disbursing the grants are being drafted. 72@ National Park Service The National Park Service is proceeding with the rehabilita- tion of,the USS Constitution National Historic Site in .Charlestown. Pier 2 at the Charlestown Navy Yard will be rehabilitated in 1985. All planned improvements for this site will be completed within the next three years, at a total cost of $1.7 million. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCF) (Department of the Interior, National Park Service) The National Park Service, through the Land and Water Conservation Service, is a major funding source.for public improvements along.. Boston Harbor. Beginning with the Downtown Waterfront Park, and including the Charlestown Shipyard Park and, a portion of Long Wharf, LAWCF has funded in excess of $15 million of public recreation and public access facilities. Additional neighborhood waterfront recrea- tion projects have been undertaken by LAWCF in East Boston at North Ferry Park and at Jefferies Point Park. While Land and Water Conservation funds have diminished due to Federal cutbacks, LAWCF remains an important resource for con- tinuing improvements along the Harbor edge. Coast Guard The Coast Guard maintains navigation facilities, establishes maritime regulations, provides protective and law enforcement services and administers some marine facility grant programs. In Boston Harbor, the Coast Guard is completing a major rebuilding and renovation program for its North End base. SIMPLIFICATION OF PROCESS The proceeding section contains a partial list of the govern- ment agencies and government permits required for waterfront development. The following flow chart shows how complex the process of finding and satisfying all relevant government requirements is for the construction of a relatively uncompli- cated marina. Harborpark proposes, as one of its goals, to coordinate and simplify this process by organizing joint review, public hear- ing, and approval procedures for the maximum number of permits. Similar efforts have been'successful elsewhere, most notably for environmental approvals of projects on the Chesapeake Bay, and as part of the Section 774 anti-snob zoning proced- ures. 73 '21 0 z 03 43 > z JjR xe t;i The failure to resolve this-problem has created a significant barrier to new development, and has created unnecessary costs which must be passed on by the developer. Simplifica.- tion of existing procedures will reduce the cost and time required for new developments, and thus make additional money available for privately funded public improvements without burdening either the developer, the eventual owner, or user. If the private sector is going to be required to internalize the cost of public improvements in its total development costs, the public sector should incorporate efficiency into its regulatory process. 75 f@ F-f noj,-jj,,sojjoj. - - - - - - - - - - FOLLOW THROUGH Over the next few months several key steps must be taken to move the Harborpark process along. Some of these steps are required to be taken by the City, some by other governmental units, some by the private sector and some by the Advisory Committee proposed in this report. Those interested in the rational development of Boston Harbor will carefully watch the progress of the following steps: o Appointment of the 15 member Advisory Committee by Mayor Flynn. o Introduction of interim Overlay Zoning Ordinance to Zoning Commission by the Boston Redevelopment Authority. o Development of interim Harborpark Design Guidelines. o Publication of Planning Reference Materials on the Institutional Framework of Harborpark. o Enactment of Water Quality Legislation, including funding. o Approval of the new Northern Avenue Bridge Design by the State, including a public amenity package. o Review of Shipyard Park Development Proposals and selection of a Developer. o Establishment of Project Action Committees for Fan Piers, Dorchester Beaches, and Charlestown Navy Yard. o Publication of Developer's Kit for Sargent's Wharf. o Final Approval for Rowes & Foster's Wharves Development. 76 CREDITS THE BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING STAFF PEOPLE: Susan Allen Assistant Director for Urban Design and Development Review Lisa Alves Word Processing Center Technician 111 John Avault Economic Analyst Barbara Barros Development Policy Planner Linda Bourque Director of Zoning Rod Brann Urban Design Intern Gary Brown Planning Officer 11 Jeffrey Brown Economic Analyst Mel Carrington Senior Draftsman 11 Lisa Clinton Xerox Services Catherine Carroll Administrative Assistant III Bill Costa, Director of Graphic Design Kerry Dacey Graphic Designer I Emel Derbentli Planning Officer I Alice Dinneen .-Office Manager Edward Devitt Xerox Services Manager Stephanie Dooley Administrative Secretary Loraine Downey Executive Secretary Conservation Commission Roberta Downey Word Processing Center Assisant Manager Roger Erickson Senior Landscape Architect Martha Fitzpatrick Landscape Architect Intern Alex Ganz Director of Research Chris Grace Special Assistant to the Director Gail Grenes Landscape Architect Intern Joan Greifield Administrative Secretary Susan Haar Special Assistant Liora Haymann Urban Design Intern Alfred Howard Director of Transportation Planning John Huggins Special Assistant to the Director John Hurley Xerox Services. Leon Jacklin Transportation Planning Officer 11 Carolyn Kaplan Special Assistant Victor Karen Senior Architect Herbert Kashin Consulting Artist Bob Kroin Chief Senior Architect Paul McCann Executive Assistant Ralph Memolo Public Information Officer Marty Minasian Cartographer IV Dan Moon Chief of Graphic Design Shirley Muirhead Landscape Designer Peter Neitz Senior Technician Joseph Noonan Assistant Director for Finance Administration Claire O'Connor Technician IV Marc Older Senior Project Coordinator Pratapp Patrose Development Policy Planner 77 Greg Perkins Economic Analyst Pierce Pearman Senior Technican Veronica Quirk Technician I Kimberly Robinson Assistant Project Coordinator Brana Rodrigo Development Assistant Arlene Saunders Administrative Secretary Pam Schooley Landscape Design Intern Paul Sebago Xerox Services Richard Shaklik Planning Officer,11 Marc Webb Assistant Director for Planning and Zoning Marie Welby Administrative Clerk 11 Philip Zeigler Director of Planning 7P 00002 1732