Community development plan: guidelines for restoring the townscape of Charlestown

7 Dor

^^(n

1

v/

tL

'mmm

\t IfR.^ARV

;^f

i^

y

1

^

r^

T

1

T

i,^^:''*>>: ^' ir'^'/iVy.'

^^V/4'S

Guidelines for Restoring
the Townscape of
Charlestown

North Area/Central Artery

r<8nBlWnTiW4tfcM<iT*'{H'J>^iIiiTiH<HifctiKiiA<F

ment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony
on Boston Harbor. Since its founding in
1629, the development of City Square
has been intimately linked with the devel-
opment of the City of Boston and the
metropolitan area. The physical evolu-
tion of the Square has been marked by a
series of dramatic changes which today
mask much of its earlier history. Elevated
highways now dominate what once was
the vital center of the Charlestown
community

Proposed highway improvements will
again dramatically alter the physical envi-
ronment of the Square. Plans call for
removing the elevated interchange of
Route 1-93, the Mystic River Bridge, and
the Central Artery The interchange will
be reconstructed to the west of 1-93,
away from Charlestown's residential
area. New tunnels running under the
Square will connect the interchange with
the Mystic River Bridge.

Removing the elevated structure and put-
ting the roadway underground allows for
new development of the open land that
~ U result. Seven parcels have been desig-

ited, which are described in detail in
this report.

us report is divided into two major
sections:

1 . Criteria and proposals for accomp
ing the best possible Townscape. This
section describes:

• Townscape: Standards for Design

general criteria used to develop
townscape

• Parcel Description

specific development criteria for each
parcel

• A Walking Tour in 1999

an intimate view of these specific par-
cels as developed

2. A strategy for making the Townscape
a reality

^ Development: Strategy for Carrying
it Out

Land Transfer, Funding Sources

Recommended Action

Special Commission, Value Capture
and Special Zoning District

• Factual Summary

Costs, Jobs, and area information for
parcels

The Townscape of
. the North Area can
I be compared to a

big house with most
ceilings open to the
sky. It has main rooms
(Gate One, City
Square), it has more
self-contained rooms
for various purposes
(Parcels), it has cor-
ridors (streets and
paths), it has an open porch (Hoosac
Park), and it has a back yard (Revere
Landing Park). It is a place people live in.

The best level of accomplishment will
be to make this an inviting home, one
with special character. Various portions
will come to serve a variety of private
enterprises. How each parcel is furnished
and decorated on the inside is not so
important. But the overall design must
be there — to make the most of the avail-
able space, to connect the parts in a
functional layout, to give spatial cohe-
sion, and to impart an overall sense of
place. And a sense of history.

A view of the
"^ project area as it
might be developed
by 1999.

^%

\^^

What will give this
place character?
There are standards
of design that must
be followed in devel-
oping the Townscape.
The more general
ones are:

<fl^ rientation An often-found defect in
Wff cities and towns is that they are con-
fusing— one gets lost easily, doesn't
know where he is. Layout of streets
and parcels on this project has been done
with this in mind. Criteria below all in one
way or another contribute to orientation.

Views Views out to Boston and its sky-
line provide scenes of beauty, and help
orientation. Views into Charlestown
from encircling highways and access
roads help reveal its character and its land-
marks, help establish its image, and help
in finding one's destination. Views within
Charlestown accomplish all of the above
benefits on a localized neighborhood level.
This project affords a unique opportunity to
develop — and secure — several critical views.
Accordingly, urban design work has included
view analysis and criteria for parcels and
streets specify these.

Paths Whether circulating by car,
bicycle, wheelchair, or on foot, people
must be the prime consideration.
"Paths" in Urban Design language is
taken to mean all such lines of movement
and modes of transportation. There must be
easy "reading" of direction, negotiable grad-
ing, adequate separation from conflicting
transportation, safe crossings, clear signage,
effective illumination, and provisions for
comfort.

Paths subordinate to main-line highways
can be made more clear and visually pleasing
if their edges are well-defined. For example,
old Warren Street is made more defined by
continuous "walls" of architecture alongside;
landscaped edges have for centuries been
provided in the form of linear layouts of
street trees. These ingredients reinforce char-
acter and image, as further explained below.

^Jl odes Nodes are the visual reference
WM points, the key spots on the map.
W^ Charlestown is blessed with a basic set
*' of nodes, such as: Bunker Hill (Monu-
ment Hill), Winthrop Square, Thompson
Square, Gate One (U.S.S. Constitution),
Shipyard Park (Navy Yard) and the collec-
tion of streets at old City Square. The

recommended Urban Design plan shows a
strenghthening of some of these nodes, such
as Gate One, and an adding of new nodes,
such as a re-constituted City Square, and
Massport's public open space at water's edge
at Hoosac Pier.

For maximum cohesion and sense of ori-
entation, these nodes are important. They
form the junctions and sub-centers by which
motorist, tourist, or resident makes use of
the town. This in turn reinforces economic
development .

Landmarks Landmarks in Urban
Design are prominent physical features
that may (or may not) have symbolic
or historic importance. They can take
a variety of forms, and may not always
be seen as beneficial, but in any case are
essential in reinforcing nodes and adding to
image. Some examples of existing landmarks
are: U.S.S. Constitution, Bunker Hill Monu-
ment, John Harvard Mall, overhead viaduct
(however negative the impact), Tobin Bridge.
The recommended Urban Design plans show
a strengthening of positive landmarks and
the creation of a new landmark, an enclosed
civic plaza at the new node. City Square.

Continuity No new or restored neigh-
borhood should be treated as an island.
To the extent possible, one should not
even be sure where the Town stops and
this project starts. All towns and cities, like
people, go through continuous growth and
change, but the best examples are those that
do not rupture the existing scale, path sys-
tem, or local flavor.

An example of lack of continuity is the
Prudential Center or the West End in Bos-
ton. An example of effective continuity is the
waterfront district along Atlantic Avenue in
Boston.

It is recognized that Chelsea Street will
continue to interrupt some Charlestown
streets. It is also recognized that new devel-
opment will have to be massive and intense
in order to be economically practical. These
are threats to continuity. However, the Urban
Design plan, comprising the Urban Design
Criteria, provides recommendations intended
to off-set these threats and to ensure an over-
all effect of continuity. More detailed study
of this in later project phases is indicated.

Character A term difficult to define,
"character" is nonetheless a popular
word applied to urban neighborhoods
to mean "an ambient quality" that a
place has or doesn 't have. Urban Designers
and community residents alike think of spe-
cific ingredients that contribute to character
and apply these to the design process. Some
of these are:

a) Absence of blight: the appearance of
sound economic and physical conditions, as
at Winthrop Square or Beacon Hill

b) "Relatable" activity: residential living or
shopping or recreation, or "schmoozing"*
rather than hard industry, for example, are
activities people can relate to comfortably
and these provide a sense of well-being.

c) Accessibility: ground floors of buildings,
property boundaries, and streets must give
transparency and visual openness if not
direct entering possibilities. A fine example
of this is Newbury Street, Boston.

d) Scale: building masses, street widths, open
spaces are organized in a more or less consis-
tent way, free of jarring contrasts of height,
bulk, color, etc., as can be found in the Town
Hill Historic District and the Back Bay

e) Spatial variety: interesting changes of
dimension, degree of openness, materials of
construction, color, landscape treatment.
Examples of this are the Shipyard and the
walk from Winthrop Square to Monument
Hill.

f) Architectural quality: interesting well-
proportioned buildings having integral style,
on well-maintained sites, as in the Town Hill
Historic District.

To the extent feasible, these elements of char-
acter have been built into the Urban Design
plans, and are incorporated into the Criteria
for Parcels.

Image This has two levels of application
in Urban Design, a: image as "visual
reputation" and b: image as physical
form vivid enough to make an impres-
sion and be remembered. For example, it can
be said that the City Square vicinity today
has a negative image (visual reputation), but
Town Hill has a strong image (forms a defi-
nite positive picture in one's mind).

*William Whyte, author of "The Social Life of Small
Urban Spaces" uses the term "schmoozing" to
describe impromptu meeting and chatting — usually
on sidewalks and in plazas.

What should we expect on each parcel?
Before each parcel is released for actual
development, detailed requirements will
need to be drawn up. This will be the
subject of professional service in later
stages. However, fundamental criteria are
set forth in this report to set the tone
for future planning. They appear in the
chart for easy reference; a more detailed
coverage appears in the Final Report.

«

Size and Location

• 138,085 sq. ft.
(3.17 acres)

• Bounded by Gate One,
Water, Warren and
Chelsea Sts.

• 58,000 sq. ft.
(1.35 acres)

• Bounded by Warren,
Water and Chelsea Sts.

• 83,635 sq. ft. total
(33,635 or .77 acre to be dis-
posed oO 50,000 sq. ft. (1.15
acre) for working use

I

External Influences

' Tourist activity at Gate One
' Dual frontages

• High noise and vibrations

• Maxwell Bo.x Co. blocks
some views

• Tunnel along south edge of
Chelsea St.

Noise barrier wall
' Private houses abutting

c

Purpose and Function

• Anchor site

• mixed use: residences,
offices, shopping, parking,
hotel,

• Mixed use: offices, ground
floor retail, possible housing,

• Gateway to project

• Residential use

I

Development Economics

Parcel can be subdivided
Up to 440 jobs
Construction: $24.4 million

• Up to 500 jobs

• Construction: $9.5 million

• Could be co-developed
with Maxwell Box and/or
Rapids

• Easy, flexible development

• Construction: $1.3 million

E

Intensity of Development

• F.A.R. = 2.0

• 276,000 sq. ft.

• 2-5 stories

• Parking: 320 cars

F.A.R. = 2.0
117,000 sq. ft.
5 stories
Parking: 52 cars

F.A.R. = 0.5

17 units
' 3 stories
' Parking: 24 cars

F

Site Plan Requirements

• One curb cut on Chelsea St.
' One curb cut on Water St.

• Set-back 70' from No.
Washington St. bridge

• Set-back 40' from
Maxwell Box

• Pedestrian connection
to bridge

• Recreational open space
min. 20,000 sq. ft.

• Curb cut on Park St.

• Emergency access off
Putnam St.

G

Architectural and
Landscape Requirements

• Continuous arcade

• Plaza at Gate One

• Mini-plaza at corner of
Water and Warren Sts.

• Parking concealed

• Massing scaled down

• Red masonry

• Provide view "break"
between Citv Square and
Water St.

• Terraces and trees at west
end of site

• Massive scaled down

• Red masonry

• Entrance at bend in Water St.

• Screen planting at wall

• Stress continuity

• Red brick

• Sloped roofs

• Overhangs

• 20,000 sq. ft.
(.46 acres)

• Bounded by Chelsea,
Main, Park and Warren Sts.

• 46,600 sq. ft.
(1.07 acres)

• Bounded by Rutherford
Ave., Main and Chelsea Sts.

• 7,840 sq. ft.
(.18 acres)

• Bounded by Harvard &
Main Sts. and Rutherford Ave.

• Total 758,379 sq. ft.
(17.4 acres)

• 99,.117sq. ft. (2.3 acres)
available for recreation

• West of Rutherford Ave.

• Park St. houses

• Tunnel underneath

• City Square

• Noise & vibration from
Chelsea St. and tunnel portal

• Gateway location

• Tunnel underneath

• Landmarks: Roughan Hall
and Courthouse

• Exposure to highways

• New transportation facili-
ties, Rutherford Ave., Boston
Sand & Gravel

' Office and retail
I Less flexible site

• New civic plaza

• Office and retail use

• Visual terminus for Park
and Main Sts.

• Visual block to ramps west
of Rutherford Ave.

• Historical statement and
site for memorials

• MBTA bus stop

Parking for 14 cars

• Primarily transportation

• Recreational land for 3
tennis courts

Up to 200 jobs
' Construction; $4.0 million

• Possible corporate
headquarters

• Anchor site

• Up to 375 jobs

• Construction: $1 1.0 million

• Either develop as part of
Parcel 5 or as separate public
facility

• No building development
sites

• F.A.R. =2.5

• EA.R. = 2.0

• 90% land coverage

•93,000 sq.ft.

• 3-5 stories

• 5 stories

• Parking: 14 cars

• Parking: none

• Set back from Park St.
houses

• Curb cuts on Park &
Warren St.

• Open space shape and size
are critical

• One curb cut on Main St.

• One curb cut on Harvard St.

• Solid wall along Chelsea,
Main and Warren Sts.

• Step-down profile

• Landscape buffer along
rear yard line

• Modest, unassuming facade

• Interesting, inviting ground
floor

• Simple roof hne

• Build up to full height

• Interesting ground floor
with arcade

• 60 ft . gap for views
between buildings

• Monumental elevator
tower with clock

• Special pairing for plaza-
extend across streets

• Due to proximity to City
Square thoroughly screen
cars with dense shrubbery

• Trees and shrubbery at
selected locations between
ramps

• Peripheral trees along
Rutherford Ave. and
Sandgrav Rd.

Aerial view of
Charlestown with
Walking Tour indi-
cated in a dotted
line.

Warren Street
Court House

Proposed Tower in
new City Square

Let's assume all the design
standards are applied,
and that development
actually occurs,
say within the next
15-20 years.
What would it
all look like, and
how would it all hang together?

Let's take a walking tour through the
area at that future time.

Horth Washington Street Bridge to
City Square We leave the water-
crossing behind; ahead lies the big
intersection. The left side of our
view is of highways on various levels,
and vehicles in motion. The right side is
building walls — first the new Rapids
Furniture Building, and next the office
building connected to Maxwell Box.®
There are flowering trees at the corner

Gate One Plaza

U.S.S. Constitution

Marina

Hoosac Park

Revere Landing
Park

which immediately offer a counterpoint
to the vehicles and hard surfaces.

Now we see through an opening
between two five-story buildings at City
Square, revealing the facade of the old
Courthouse — a contrast between old and
new. We see the clock tower, a landmark.
With the pedestrian crossing light, we
cross Chelsea Street, our view into the

I

The river is

behind us;

ahead lies the
intersection of
Rutherford Avenue
and Chelsea Street.

^

^^^iMscr:^

square becoming more intriguing with
each step. We glimpse people there,
it draws us closer. ®

City Square We are "squeezed" be
tween the two buildings — the path
now a mini-square or vestibule — to the
main square ahead. Overhead a glass
bridge connects the two buildings — people
are crossing over. We move into the Square,
and the space opens up dramatically. There
are shops, fluttering flags, a radial pattern
of cobbles under foot, people gathered
around a memorial
plaque, sunning
themselves on
benches. This feels
like an outdoor
room, with the
old Courthouse and
Roughan Hall help-
ing to enclose it. It
is reminiscent of the
old days, when City
Square was a cen-
tralized collection
point for the carri-
age trade. The plaza
is big enough to ac-
commodate lots of
people and sunshine,
but closed in enough
to feel like a defi-
nite place.®

Walking in the direction of Roughan
Hall, we see the bus shelter built-in under
the building on our right — it's part of the
arcaded row of storefronts. Beyond this,
we can see across Chelsea Street, and
through the break in the new office build-
ing over there we catch a glimpse of the
marina, boat masts, and a narrow piece
of the skyline of the North End. ®

eit>' Square to Warren Street
We cross the street, with the inter-
esting pavement pattern extending
all the way to the beginning of
Park Street. Heading into Park Street,
we feel squeezed again between Roughan
Hall on our left, and the new office
building on our right. The ground-floor
shops on each side attract our attention.
Now at the old Park Street residences.

2

We see
through an
opening into
City Square, with
the court house
in view.

3 We've arrived
at a special
place —
people, action, old
buildings opposite
new ones, interest-
ing, historic.

4

Looking out
I from City
Square toward
the waterfront.

s

At Park and
Warren, we
look back at

City Square with

its tower. . .

8. . . a mews
behind the
Park Street
houses with parked
cars concealed ...

7. . . across
Warren Street
there's a
sculptured sun-
screen for the tun-
nel below . . .

t

. down
Warren Street
toward the
water.

we see some of the vintage Charlestown
revealed in its architecture. And beyond,
we see Winthrop Square and the top of
the Bunker Hill monument.

Stopping at Warren Street, we wheel
around and see back into City Square,
accented by its tower. It is a framed pic-
ture that closes out the elevated highways
beyond. Just to the north of us are the
new red-brick walk-up apartments built
behind Roughan Hall and extending
across what used to be Henley Street.®

Looking to the right, across Warren
Street, is the unbroken red-brick facade
of the new houses, with their interesting
architectural features of rhythmical win-
dows and doors, overhanging upper sto-
ries, and pitched roofs. Not old-fashioned
architecture, but a style that fits in.

■ own Warren Street to Water Street
We walk on the extra-wide sidewalk
in front of the "Sweet Potato"
(there is a large drain pipe under
us), toward the intersection. On our right
is the driveway leading into an attractive
landscaped "mews" between the new
office building and the backs of the old
Park Street residences. It is full of cars,
but they are well-screened. The office
building is actually five stories high
where it fronts on Chelsea Street but
doesn't overwhelm the residences
because it steps down to three stories. ®

Straight ahead, through the intersec-
tion, we see the open view to the water
again, this time in a little more detail.
There are boats in the foreground and
the Old North Church tower in the dis-
tance, showing how close we are to the
downtown center of Boston. (2)

Across Warren Street to the left we see
the rising walls of the tunnel down-ramp,
with its sun-screen top. To soften the
effect, there is dense planting of trees
and shrubs in a raised planter that dou-
bles as a bench.®

At the pedestrian-crossing signal, we
begin the rather long crossing of Chelsea
Street, a major channel of space for cars
and trucks. A divider in the middle gives
us a safe resting point. Arriving at the
other side, the view to the waterfront

101

appears even wider. Besides Old North
Church, we see on the skyline the multi-
ple colors of the North End and the @
shapes of Harbor Towers against the sky.

This view is framed by new buildings.
On the right, a rather plain five-story
wall of red brick — an office building
with repetitive windows. On the left side
of the street another office building
that steps back as it goes up, and seems
rounded at the next corner, so as to draw
our attention to the east. We see down
a slight slope to that
corner, where the
sidewalk widens into
a small plaza.
Another arcade be-
gins there — the Wa-
ter Street retail
arcade.

Across the
Intersection
to the Hoosac
Park

Moving ahead to
the intersection at
Water Street, we
come to that small
plaza, made up of
brick paving and
shrubbery, benches
and a pedestrian-
scaled lamp post. Crossing the street, we
confront the far edge of Water Street — it
is a screen of bollards and trees that
shunts vehicles to the left or right, but
lets us walk through. @

We pass onto a plaza paved with gran-
ite cobblestones. Unlike City Square, this
place is not tightly enclosed by buildings,
but is more like a viewing platform at
water's edge. To the left sits the recent
office building on Hoosac Pier, owned

9

Farther down
Warren, we
sense a
build-up. . .

... the
Hoosac
Park, where

the visual "funnel"

opens to the

Boston skyline. . .

n

. boats
and people
and land-
scape in the fore-
ground.

11

HWe head
toward
Revere
Landing Park. .

K. . . under
the bridge
and into
the park. . .

14

. we

return

along
Water Street and
look around the
corner of Maxwell
Box, through
another opening
that reveals City
Square. . .

K. . .we
follow
Water Street
and meet Warren;
an arcade and
promenade lie
ahead.

by Massport. To the right lies an open
parking area serving the bustling marina
before us. Nautical sounds and salt air
surround the locals and the visitors, the
brown-baggers and the Freedom Trail
folks, resting, schmoozing, watching var-
ious water activities, which may include
the Charlestown Boy's Club boat race.
Here the view to the Boston skyline is
rich and detailed — one can now see the
Custom House Tower, and cars back on
the bridge. This is a special place, close
to the original Town landing. It is today
the community's only real gathering spot
on the waterfront. ®

Hoosac Park to Revere Landing Park
Getting up to leave, we catch a @
glimpse to the west — and the visual
come-on of Revere Landing Park.
We follow the lure, rejoin Water Street,
pass Maxwell Box on our right. Rapids
on the left, the geometry of the arched
opening ahead forming an inviting por-
tal. Under the bridge we are "squeezed"
again — it feels dark and cool — then we
break out into the green open space of
the park. Here one can walk across the
dam back to North Station, or mount®
the winding ramp back up to the bridge.

Revere Landing Park to Gate One
Reversing our direction, back
through the arch, passing Maxwell
Box on our left, we take the bend
in the street, going around Hoosac Park.
Here we have a view through the new
office building and can glimpse City
Square. ®

At the corner of Warren, we cross
over into the Water Street arcade with
the long row of trees. This forms a defi-
nite promenade with rhythms of columns
and tree trunks marking our movement.®

121

Within the arcade are bright and colorful
shop windows, interspersed with an
entrance to offices above, and later on
an entrance to apartments above.®

Meanwhile, we can look across the
street and see at intervals some open
views out toward water, toward the
harbor, and East Boston. Over there
is Raytheon's Bunker Hill Pavilion
where they continue the popular show
"The Whites of Their Eyes."

We arrive at a break in the arcade, a
car entrance to the hotel and to the park-
ing garage inside. This time we feel a ®
slight "squeeze" as we pass between the
5-story hotel and the old Chocolate Fac-
tory. Then, the space opens up. We have
arrived at Gate One. ®

Sate One This place is another
large, enclosed outdoor room with
a wide, curving street running
through. We see busses dropping
off and picking up passengers. Beyond
are the imposing masts and rigging of the
U.S.S. Constitution. Straight ahead is @
the gate leading into the Shipyard, now
home to some 3000 people. Looking ®
leftward, we see the historic shipyard
wall, the rising ramp of the Tobin Bridge
and the towering image of the Bunker
Hill Monument. Below, we see the walk-
way one takes to the monument. Around
us, we see the landscaped plaza framed
on two sides by the stepping walls of the
hotel. In this outdoor room the bustle @
of pedestrians and movement of busses
combine with the clutches of people in
the outdoor cafe, in the park-like green
space, around the souvenir vendors and
in front of the big historical map-board —
adding to the sense that we are in an
important place that lives and breathes.

We could go on — for the continuity
has been established and the paths keep
going. But we've finished our tour of
the new area and have seen how it all
fits together. Let us now turn back to
the reality of what we must do to bring
this about.

We move
through the
arcade,
interesting shops
under cover,
the Bunker Hill
PaviUion seen
across the street. .

flin ... we come
I # to the hotel
Mm entrance,
gUmpsing the masts
of the U.S.S.
Constitution. . .

It

. we are
"squeezed"
between the
old chocolate fac-
tory on our right
and the new hotel
on our left.

13

Here we
arrive at a
wide plaza,

setting for Gate

One. . .

. . . looking
to our left
we see the
path continue
under the Tobin
Bridge downramp,
the Bunker Hill
Monument
beyond. . .

a. . . and
here is the
hotel, fram-
ing the plaza,
enclosing us, help-
ing this place to
seem important.

r

A view of City
Square as it
appeared in the
1890's, with the
new City Hall and
the Waverly House
hotel dominating
the architecturally
well-defined plaza.
City Square served
both as a place
of business and
a cross-road for
horse-drawn^,
vehicles en route
between Boston
and points north.

; 1^ <

S1M1E6Ym

IT Ml

Once high-
way improve-
ments have
been com-
pleted and
parcels of
land laid out,
a new cast
of characters will be needed,
and a unique activity called
"development" will hope-
fully get underway. Instead
of a predominantly public function as
before, with only incidental interest by
private parties, the development phase
becomes a predominantly private func-
tion, facilitated by public action. But
how to facilitate it? This part of the
Community Development Plan attempts
to show how the development process
can be started. Such issues as how to
transfer the land, how to pay for the pre-
development phase, and how to ensure
implementation of community goals, are
dealt with below.

V

arious Ways to Transfer the Land

Transferring of land is not just a
legal and financial process, it is an
important public responsibility.
Serving the best interests of the local
community must be balanced with needs
of the region and state. A process of
competitive selection of developers must
be organized and administered. Stand-

ards of fairness must be set and strictly
adhered to. Criteria for physical site
development must be communicated and
enforced to ensure high quality and last-
ing value of the newly-formed environ-
ment. In support of these functions, it
will be critical to put the land in the
hands of a body capable of raising funds
and commanding support of a wide col-
lection of interests. The uniqueness of
this place and its significant economic
potential require careful consideration of
whether an agency other than the Mass.
Department of Public Works should take
over. Let's consider the possibilities:

\. Mass. D.PW, The Department will
in any case take initial possession of all
project land in order to carry out the
highway improvements. They normally
do not function beyond this level, except
for maintaining the highways — getting
involved in development is not part of
the Department's normal role. However,
given these special problems of elaborate
urban highways interlaced with urban
parcels, it might be logical for D.P.W. to
undertake to bring in the experts it lacks
and orchestrate the process. There would
be the advantages of continuity, a long-
standing commitment, the status of a
state agency, and no need for an addi-
tional "middle-man" in transference of
land. While indications are that the
Department does not presently have an

Pedestrian
Circulation

Diagram shows
lines of pedestrian
movement and
connections
between both new
and existing nodes
G unctions, open
plazas, etc.)

••• Paths

(Pedestrian
Circulation)

■ Nodes
(Public
Spaces)

O BOS TOM

to BOSTOM

GATE I PL«Z

■•

BUMKER

COMHUNFTT

COLLEGE

16

4(The economic
benefit ... to the
Charlestown com-
munity would be a
tremendous boost
in appealing to pri-
vate business
investment. 9?

Senator Paul Tsongas

interest in such an expanded role, it
would be a major policy decision for
the Department to consider.

2. Boston Redevelopment Authority

Its power of eminent domain would not
be needed, but its experience in design
review and developer selection, as well
as in zoning administration would be
invaluable. As a City agency, it could
easily coordinate the interests and
relevant functions of sister agencies.
It would have to essentially abandon its
own early plans for Charlestown wliich
have remained largely neglected for want
oj^pxiority and funding. What the pow-
ers and functions of BRA will be several
years from now is unclear, although it
has organizational life under state law.
Without the impetus of a substantial
funding base, it is difficult to imagine
B.R.A. in a primary role.

3. Neighborhood Development Agency
An agency of the current city adminis-
tration, this organization could bring
some of the same practical advantages
and professionalism brought by BRA.
However, its present jurisdiction seems
unclearly defined, and there is no way at
this time to predict its potential for tak-
ing the lead.

4. Local Community Development
Corporation In such places as Buffalo,
Minneapolis, and here in Boston can be
found organizations of business people

and private citizens formed for purposes
of taking the lead in neighborhood re-
vitalization and development. Typically
enjoying vital political endorsements and
sources of funds from bankers or philan-
thropists or federal or state agencies,
such organizations have in the past been
able to offer a unique blend of grass
roots energy and professional sophistica-
tion. The latter usually depends on expe-
rienced planners and administrators hired
with back-up staffing capable of dealing
with the day-to-day complexities of the
process. Naturally the cost of sustaining
such an organization can be considera-
ble, so funding is of paramount impor-
tance. If the commitment of significant
time and energy can be marshalled
among local citizens, this type of entity
can provide a strong focus on commu-
nity goals. But realities of development
demand every-day professional work.

In the consultant's opinion, existing
organizations are not by themselves likely
to measure up to the criteria for success-
ful directing of the development process.
Instead, a newly-created organization is
suggested.

Various Ways to Finance Develop-
ment Amenities and landscape
improvements, are due to budge-
tary necessity, all but excluded from
the basic highway improvement project.
The Final Report calls for approximately

Existing

Charlestown

Textures

Diagram showing
how continuity has
been broken in
the Chelsea Street
area. Building
footprints are
shown in brown;
streets, ramps and
empty lots in
white.

17

1 !/2 % of the total budget to be spent for
street planting and a modest plaza at
City Square. But other improvements in
public spaces are needed:

• Brick sidewalks on Warren Street,
Water Street, and the part of Chelsea
Street between City Square and Warren
Street

• Additional planting at "accent points"
such as the corner of Warren and Water
Streets, Warren and Park Streets

• Street furniture, including benches,
trash receptacles, supplemental lighting

• Tourist information graphics

• Recreation facilities such as the tennis
courts on Parcel Seven and an optional
tot-lot in the fragmented residual land of
Parcel Three

Funds for these amenities must be raised
from other sources.

At this writing, such reliable old
sources as Urban Renewal Community
Development Block Grants, and Eco-
nomic Development grants (EDA) are
not available, and no new major funding
sources from any level of government
have been proposed to take their place.

There are presently some secondary-
level funds that offer partial assistance.
These are:

1. Urban Development Action Grant

(UDAG) a program that is funded

through 1983. This provides low-interest
lending under City auspices for construc-
tion where substantial private financing
is already available for at least -A of the
costs, and where there are clear public
benefits of employment or other assis-
tance to minority or low-income people.

2. National Endowment for the Arts
provides matching grants to non-profit
organizations and local and state govern-
ments for planning and architectural
design. Emphasis is on civic design and
beautification of urban spaces, and may
include support for design of plazas,
parks, street furnishings, signage, light-
ing, and public buildings.

3. Tax relief, especially for a so-called
121 A Corporation, which establishes
payments to the City in lieu of taxes,
based upon a negotiated relationship to
business income actually materializing
out of the development.

4. Possible new tax practices, such as
incremental taxation (practiced in
Memphis), whereby the City offers short-
term assistance (10-15 years) based on
the expectation of increased valuation
and tax revenues in the future.

5. Other creative arrangements, such as
long-term leasing of the land, that
might open up tax incentives to private
developers.

At present, it appears that the subsidy
approach is fast becoming a thing of the

a. . . eliminating
a very dangerous
traffic condition
. . . addressing
genuine historic
preservation needs,
and encouraging
economic and
community devel-
opment. . .W

Speaker Thomas O'Neill

Diagram showing
how urban design
criteria can lead to
reconstruction of
Charlestown tex-
ture and character.

•<C^ Visual Cone

"^ Park

Node

*

Existing
Buildings

Proposed
Buildings

Urban Design
Opportunities

past, and that new coalitions of public
and private funding will be emerging
before the North Area is ready for
development.

There is one fundamental fact underly-
ing all options: the land created by this
project is a new-found commodity with
its own market value. The conversion of
this value to dollars or in-kind benefits is
known as Value Capture. This is addressed
in the recommendations below.

At this time
the consul-
tant can
only project
future market conditions and financ-
ing methods. Therefore, specific
approaches to financing North Area
development cannot be recom-
mended, but must await later-stage study.
At this time the most promising strategy
now appears to be:

• Create a special Commission

• Employ Value Capture

• Establish a Special Zoning District

1. Special Commission: Should D.P.W.
elect not to manage the pre-development
phase, a special commission (Charlestown
Development Commission) should be
created at the state level. The Commis-
sion's purpose would be to facilitate

community development — within the
transportation framework already estab-
lished under the direction of the Depart-
ment of Public Works. A relatively mod-
est commitment of state funds would
provide for staff. It is suggested that a
board consisting of representatives from
the Charlestown community. City of
Boston, D.P.W., Massport, U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, M.D.C. and the pri-
vate sector would establish policy This
should not preclude the formation of a
community development entity, which
could participate over a range of possible
roles, from that of developer of specific
sites, for example City Square, to that of
mere representation on the Charlestown
Development Commission. The principal
advantages of a state-level commission
are immediate funding of its own activi-
ties, and immediate power to bring
together the diverse elements having an
interest in the successful execution of
the project.

The Commission should be a "sunset"
organization, whose life ends with the
completion of development and public
space improvements. This sensible limita-
tion worked well with the Government
Center Commission in Boston some
years ago.

2. Value Capture Because of the short-
age of funds to pay for vital amenities
accompanying the highway improve-

Vehicular
Circulation

Map showing pro-
posed streets and
direction of traffic.

© Traffic
Signal

I Traffic
Direction

19

merits, the D.P.W. should transfer the
land at no cost to the new Commission.
In turn, the Commission would have
responsibility for raising capital through
the sale of the land, and to the extent
necessary, for raising additional funds at
the state level. Value Capture objectives
should also include consideration of pric-
ing land at levels capable of attracting
private investment.

3. Special Zoning District A map in

this report shows the proposed bounda-
ries of a Special Zoning District. It is an
"overlay" of the existing zoning map, in
which the comprehensive nature of com-
munity development is recognized and
implemented. Important features of
the existing Zoning Ordinance would be
retained, such as maximum building
height and overall land use. But vital
issues such as density and parking could
be dealt with more creatively, and adjust-
ment of requirements to meet the limita-
tions of each parcel could be made
without cumbersome formal appeals
procedures. The "Planned Unit Develop-
ment" concept, long practiced in many
jurisdictions, serves as a model for this.
Political resistance is not likely, provided
the City of Boston remains involved in
the process and retains its powers of zon-
ing control.

How to use this Community Develop-
ment Plan Like a newly-hatched
bird, this Plan is a concept with
wings attached. The basic parts are
there, (thanks to dedicated efforts of
many) but much nurturing and further
work is needed before it can fly. Indeed,
further discussion about methods is in
order.

Once the highway infrastructure is in
place, there wiU be either a community
stagnation, a rampage of careless profi-
teering, or an intelligent, well-integrated
development with benefits for all.

Strictly speaking, the Department of
Public Works will have done their job,
and the transportation goals will have
been successfully met. A new energy, new
commitment must arise to make this
Plan fly.

A perusal of the Factual Summary
should leave little doubt as to the eco-
nomic potential. When combined with
the views, paths, nodes, the cobblestones
and trees, — in short, a character compat-
ible with old Charlestown — the prospects
for community development are thrilling!

In order to move the process in the
right direction, the respective roles
of the Department of Public Works and
the North Area Task Force should be
extended in an on-going partnership —
to take the lead in implementing this
Community Development Plan.

ii. . . substantial
benefits resulting
from the current
City Square plan
include . . . mil-
lions of dollars in
planned private
investment and the
related employ-
ment and tax base
increases. >5

Governor Ed King

Zoning with special Zoning Plan
district permitted
land uses defined
by the City of
Boston Zoning
Ordinance show-
ing the proposed
Special District
boundary.

Commercial

Industrial
^i Residential
■ ^ Special District

20

3 9999 06550 916 6

BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AOTHORIH
Library

Building
Construction
Area by Parcels

Land Area,

Land Area by Parcels:

Entire Project

Parcel One

138,085

Parcel Two

58,000

Parcel Three

83,635

Parcel Four

20,000

Parcel Five

46,600

Sub Total

346,320

[7.95 acres)

Parcel Six

7,840

Parcel Seven

758,379

Total

1,112,539 sq. ft.

(25.54 acres)

Parcel One

Parcel Two

Parcel Three

Parcel Four

Parcel Five

276,000

117,000

25,600

50,000

93,000

Total 561,600 sq. ft.

Number of
Jobs Projected,
by Parcel

Parcel One: 440
Parcel Two: 500
Parcel Three: —
Parcel Four: 200
Parcel Five: 375
Total: 1,515

Building Construction
Costs (1982)
by Parcel

Parcel One

Parcel Two

Parcel Three

Parcel Four

Parcel Five

$24,400,000.
$ 9,500,000.
$ 1,300,000.
$ 4,000,000.
$11,000,000.

Total $50,200,000.

Constructed Use,
by Parcels

Parcel One

Office

60,000

Residence

35,000

Retail

20,000

Hotel

160,000

Recreation

Parking

320

Parcel Two

110,000

—

7,000

—

—

44

Parcel Three

—

23,000

3,600

—

20,000

24

Parcel Four

45,000

—

5,000

—

—

14

Parcel Five

85,000

—

8,000

—

—

—

Parcel Sl\

—

—

—

—

—

14

Parcel Seven

—

—

—

—

99,317

—

Total

300,000

58,000

38,600

160,000

119,317

416 cars

%

54%

10%

7%

29%

CDP

lUSI

the City Square
area, showing pro-
posed highways
Wand local streets,
f together with par-
Heels as they might
Sbe improved by
private developers.

Community Dev«7

Cafe

Issued to

Prepared for:

The CommonwealtTTot Massachusetts

Executive Office of Transportation and

Construction

Department of Public Works

In cooperation with:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Consultant team headed by:
Louis Berger and Associates Inc.

This report prepared by:
CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares &
Casendino Inc.

Library

44 . . . What controls do
we have over development
here . . . will the land be
developed appropriately? f^

Task Force Comment

s.A-fiW*-