Re: Stop all RFP pending Comprehensive Cost/Benefit Studies of Pier 5
Restoration VS Demolition and other Site Conditions
Dear Director Brian Golden and BPDA Co-Ordinator McDaniels,
This BPDA RFP for CNY Pier 5 has not been comprehensively and responsibly
thought out prior to issuing the “AS IS” offering —which is excerpted here:
“The Property is intended for disposition by a long term ground lease by the BRA
pursuant to the RFP. The Property is being offered as is, without warranty of any
kind, express or implied. If concerned about the Property’s condition, legal or
physical access and the maintenance thereof, property lines or boundaries
or any other matter affecting the Property, prospective developers should
investigate and conduct whatever due diligence and inspection deemed
necessary.”
This letter is to demand that the BPDA stop this irresponsible RFP process until
all the information and determinations required are obtained, comprehensive
studies made by independent third parties, and all options evaluated and
properly priced, etc.
Perhaps the most essential and fundamental of the multitude of questions that
have been compiled in this comment period is —What are the costs, impacts and
benefits of:
Demolition, hazardous materials clean-up, and reconstruction of the entire
pier for heavy multi-story construction and requiring transport and
disposal of enormous volumes construction waste. – vs. pier restoration and “Leeds”
environmental re-use and audit to support a straightforward lightweight park
platform for a public use pier using pile wrapping techniques use for underwater
bridge foundations piers. This Cost / Benefit conclusion would appear to be a
no-brainer, especially when you enter in Leeds audit, loss of public amenity,
loss of tourism, the legal determinations such as whether the demolition or
change of shape of the pier is even permitted by the original agreement with the
U.S. Navy, etc.
In attempting to obtain answers, there is the hesitance of political pressure on
engineers and contractors who are asked. The only way to by-pass this
information blocking is to request an independent study financed by the BPDA
prior to proceeding with any action on the current RFP. It may be that the
consultants needed for a true independent cost / benefit analysis might be from
outside of the regional sphere of influence.
What detailed engineering drawings, specifications and condition reports, both
existing and proposed, are actually available in full? Is there any change in the
existing structure under the crane track?
Toxic waste removal situation? Archeological, environmental and biological
resource assessments? Climate resiliency? “Highest and Best Use” Alternatives.
What are the actual requirements of the U.S. Navy Transfer Documents
regarding demolition, restoration or any change of shape, size or structural
configuration?
Is there a comprehensive analysis of all the Piers in Boston Harbor to determine
historic, structural, environmental, climatic resilience, urbanistic vista values and
best uses of our “Harbor Fringe of Piers” ? This is required by any professional
Planning Department.
Why is Charlestown Navy Yard Urban Pier 5 referred to in the Request for
Proposals (“RFP”) as “a ground lease of a vacant parcel of land”, when it is
actually an historic pier structure over Ch. 91 MA flooded tidelands which could
be demolished. Does this require a unique “air rights” lease over flowed
waterways and how is that worded?
To consider demolishing such a large and important historic structure as
opposed to its environmentally responsible reuse is a reckless misuse of
resources. The issuing of an “As Is” RFP with complications of this magnitude is
disrespectful of both the Community and the Proposers and wasteful of
everyone’s time and money —especially tax payers. Due diligence has not been
done.