Michael S. Hass is a principal at ADD Inc. in Cambridge. He has more than 25 years of expertise in master planning and design of mixed-use facilities, housing, corporate campuses and office buildings.
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority will begin issuing requests for proposals this fall for the development parcels above the soon-to-be-completed Central Artery. Even if this schedule slides, the moment seems right to ask what the MTA?s RFP process and the challenges it poses developers may be like. One glimpse into this prospect ? call it a sneak preview ? is the story of the Gateway Development in City Square, Charlestown.
The Gateway project is located on a pair of adjacent, newly created city blocks, originally offered to developers as Central Artery North Area Parcels 2 and 4. These blocks sit directly on or straddle the tunnels built to replace the elevated connector from the Tobin Bridge to Interstate-93 and downtown Boston. This work, along with the Ted Williams Tunnel, comprised the first phase of the Big Dig. Though initially controlled by the Massachusetts Highway Department, ownership was transferred to the MTA after completion of work. It was the MTA that put out the CANA RFPs, managed the proposal process, and is the lessor ? on the basis of a 99-year ground lease ? to the winning developer, exactly the formula anticipated for the Central Artery. This is what makes the Gateway Development such an apt precedent.
The Designation Process
The City Square story goes back long before construction took place; even much of the planning for future development began a full year before Boston issued its initial Central Artery Zoning Guidelines in 1991. Charlestown, like the North End and Chinatown, two of the neighborhoods touched by the Central Artery, is a community with a strong sense of place and enlightened self-interest. Early on, the Charlestown Neighborhood Council was formed to represent concerned citizens in the high-stakes world of the Big Dig. It quickly became a force in all planning decisions affecting the CANA district (and still remains an active player). The special dimension this group brought to the development arena will no doubt be replicated by its counterparts along the Central Artery.
At the end of 1998, with the tunnels, the new square, and the state/city/neighborhood team firmly in place, the development phase was launched. The RFP for the CANA parcels ? a book of impressive heft ? was published in mid December. Whatever pre-planning and political probing had gone on before, the public side of the process now moved into high gear. Five developers and their professional teams responded to the request, focusing on three key goals:
1) Offer the most favorable financial terms,
2) avoid any fatal regulatory blunders and
3) present the best development program and strongest design solution.
With each party to the review process promoting its own agenda, this was no small order.
The first goal was the top priority of the MTA. The Big Dig was already mind-bogglingly expensive, and progressively going up. Though at times obscure and bureaucratic, the MTA was ready to make deals and to close them with deliberate speed. The second goal was complex, but clearly defined. With a strong planning team on board, the thick volume of CANA Design Guidelines, Boston Zoning Articles 58 and 80, State Chapter 91, and all the rest of the regulatory and environmental stew could be mastered and assurances given that their principles would be followed.
In many respects, the third goal was the trickiest. At all stages of the CANA review process the Charlestown Neighborhood Council wielded significant influence, but during the public presentation phase, when the development proposals were subjected to close and competitive evaluation in an open forum, the CNC took a leading role. With the MTA present but largely silent, it was the community that listened to the developer pitches, asked the tough questions, and consistently brought the discussion back to their own issues. Through a number of hearings at the local Knights of Columbus, the proposing teams were put through their paces, steadily adapting program and design concepts in answer to comments. Once the hearings were over, the CNC joined the MTA?s final deliberations, ultimately striking the balance between financial and community values.
There was also politicking, of course. With stakes so high, with so many public players involved, with developers in such intense competition, no less could be expected. But parcel by parcel the designations were made, and the process successfully completed. Because of their special complexity and sensitivity, the developer for CANA Parcels 2 and 4 was one of the last selected, in the fall of 1999.
The Design and Approvals Process
The vital but weary process of project design and detailed regulatory review soon supplanted the excitement of official designation. The laundry list of interested parties seemed nearly endless* ? but before the regulatory machine could kick in, a surge of design work was essential.
Of all the aspects of the Gateway Development, the design process may least resemble the upcoming Central Artery experience, but still, it offers a cautionary note. The MTA had inherited the CANA parcels from Mass Highway, and this simple fact promptly created a communications muddle. Information in the RFP turned out to be flawed; claims of the tunnels? ability to support building loads above were overstated, and the exact location of the tunnels, especially the edge of the tunnel cutting through Parcel 2, seemed to be a mystery. When tunnel construction documents and other technical clarifications were sought, no one seemed to know who had what, or where. A set of drawings eventually unearthed was missing a number of crucial sheets. Information about backfilling and the quality of the soils used could not be found. In the end, though all parties tried to be open and helpful, a full accounting of the existing conditions was simply not to be had. At risk, project design proceeded without it.
The approvals process, while a long and demanding grind, turned out to be surmountable. Each agency and commission was focused and responsive on its issues. There was a momentum built into the system, an assumption that the project was ?real,? that kept every step moving on to the next. By early summer this year, the final approvals for the Gateway Development fell into place; in July the contractor was authorized to begin work. Wisely, the MTA?s timeline for the Central Artery ? RFPs in late 2001/early 2002, construction in 2004 ? will allow for this same orderly regulatory review.
