February 28, 2005

Susan Silberberg

Senior Vice President

Community Partners Consultants, Inc.

161 Packard Avenue

Medford, MA 02155

Re: Charlestown Navy Yard: Pier 5

Dear Susan:

We have reviewed the Navy Yard Chapter 91 file at DEP. The file is rich with

historical documents regarding Pier 5 development. Examination of the file

demonstrates the danger of site by site development that is not informed by prior

history.

It is clear that at the time Flagship Wharf (Building 197) was developed there were

serious concerns that private residential density at that segment of the Navy Yard had

reached a tipping point – whereby additional residential development (i.e., Pier 5)

would unduly privatize the segment. We believe this information will be useful to

your planning efforts to identify appropriate SPDF programming, as well as

consideration of the effect a project such as Pier 5 will have on that segment of the

Harborpark. As will be described in the community comment letters to said project,

the infrastructure is woefully inadequate to support the current privatization plans

for Pier 5.

Background

The development of Pier 5 was originally presented in tandem with Building 197 in

1977. The Pier 5 part of the proposal seems to be of a density similar to Pier 7 (i.e. a

plan for townhouses) and Building 197 was significantly less dense than as it stands

today. Even given the tandem density proposed, the state had deep misgivings about

the effects of the privatization of both the Building 197 footprint and Pier 5. It

appears that because of these concerns, Pier 5 was severed from the tandem proposal

and Building 197’s density was significantly increased by the addition of a number of

units similar to what one would have expected to be on Pier 5. In other words, it

appears that Building 197 developer accepted the reality that privatization of Pier 5

was inappropriate so it crammed the proposed tandem density into Building 197 and

gave up on Pier 5.

Below are relevant statements from various documents:

http://www.friendscny.org

PO Box 290787 * Charlestown, MA* 02129-0124

info@friendscny.org

Memo, dated 12/3/1987 from Gary Clayton of DEQE (DEP’s predecessor) discussing the Building 197 Ch. 91

Waterways License

“we are troubled by the way it (Bldg. 197) relates to the pattern of development which is evolving along the

Charlestown Harborwalk northward of Drydock 2/Pier 4.”

“our concern is that the high combination of high residential density, excessive massing close to the water’s edge

and within important view corridors, and a lack of any interior spaces devoted to activities of special destination

value to the Greater Boston community may result in an atmosphere of undue privatization within the Piers 5-9

zone, which in turn would seriously inhibit public use and enjoyment of this important segment of the Navy Yard

waterfront.”

“We are cognizant that future development in the area beyond Pier 9 can be programmed so as to have an

enlightening effect on this adjoining area … but such efforts by themselves do not seem sufficient … to guarantee

that the shoreline beyond Pier 4 will be as inviting to the public as it that which lies before it, i.e. Old Ironsides/

Shipyard park area. To achieve this goal, we believe additional measures must be taken to establish the “gateway”

area running in front of Building 197 – including Pier 5 in its entirety – as a major locus of public pedestrian activity

as well as water-dependent use.”

“While these shortcomings (referring to Bldg. 197 encroachment on the public realm) are not so severe as to render

Building 197 unlicensable under Ch. 91, they do have important implications for the acceptability of future projects

on the only nearby parcel that remains undeveloped, i.e. Pier 5. We feel strongly that the choices of uses and

building configurations on this site should be such as to promote public use and enjoyment of Boston Harbor to an

especially high degree, in order to offset the impediments to meaningful public access that are arguably associated

with the private housing predominant in Buildings 197, 42, and 103 as well as on Pier 7 and the Shipway II parcels.

In our view, this general segment of the Harborpark can ill-afford to suffer further detriments of this kind, and any

private, non-water-dependent uses of Pier 5 (especially for more housing) should be judged accordingly.”

EOEA Building 197 Chapter 91 Written Determination, dated 12/7/1987

“Together, both Building 197 and Pier 5, are situated in a critical location of the Navy Yard due to the proximity to

the existing water’s edge as well as public waterfront walkways, parks, and piers. To ensure that use and access of

the public spaces in and around these structures is not compromised, the Department will continue to carefully

examine and license future activities. Thus, work that is now being planned on Pier 5 will be considered by the

Department with respect to the use and the facilities of Building 197, with special emphasis on accommodating

water-dependent uses on Pier 5.”

Conclusion

The development of Buildings 197, 42, and 103 as well as on Pier 7 and the Shipway development represents the

maximum allotted privatization of the Pier 5 Gateway area. Review of the records strongly indicates that Pier 5

was not considered appropriate for privatization because of its prominent location on the Harbor and the material

adverse effect such privatization would have on the public’s ability to access the public realm.

2 Cont >>

http://www.friendscny.org

PO Box 290787 * Charlestown, MA* 02129-0124

info@friendscny.org

There are compelling reasons as to why Pier 5 should not be privatized. The Watersheet Activation Plan, the FPA

study, the forthcoming Municipal Harbor Plan (“MHP”) amendments, and all other planning initiatives need to

recognize what others in the past already recognized – Pier 5 should not be privatized. A potential objection to this

line of reasoning is that the 1991 MHP, approved after the decoupling of Flagship and Pier 5, allows for the

privatization of Pier 5.

That objection is faulty – the 1991 MHP contemplated that the New England Aquarium was to relocate to Parcel 5

at Yard’s End. As you know, the NEAq relocation is a significant Special Public Destination Facility (“SPDF”) – one

which presently draws over 1.3 million visitors a year to the waterfront as well as offering an extensive educational

outreach program (approximately 50,000 New England schoolchildren children a year are admitted to NEAq at no

charge). In addition, the 1991 MHP contemplated other significant public access programming that has fallen by

the wayside. In other words, the overwhelming presence of NEAq and the other SPDF programming, along with

the resultant significant increase in public access to the waterfront, was the tradeoff for the privatization of Pier 5.

Since none of the SPDF components contemplated in the 1991 MHP have been implemented, combined with the

construction start for 224 housing units on Parcel 4, and the talk of Parcel 5 as a site for even more luxury

condominium construction, reliance on the 1991 MHP as a viable planning document, and a rationale for the

privatization of Pier 5, is wholly inappropriate. The prevailing wisdom of circa 1987 should be used as the baseline,

not the 1991 MHP. Pier 5 development has been on hold for 17 years to take advantage of faded memories and

forgotten promises. Planners and regulators have an obligation to act as a check on this type of development/

planning abuse.

Please do not hesitate to call me should you have any questions or comments.

Very truly yours,

Michael W. Parker

cc: Rich McGuinness, Jim Gribaudo, BRA

John Weber, CZM

Andrea Langhauser, MADEP

Richard Bourre, MEPA