DOCSLIB.ORG

Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee FAQ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee FAQ Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee FAQ 1. What is the Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee’s position regarding the future of historic Pier 5? The Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee is an independent group of folks who live, work, or play in the ​ ​ Charlestown Navy Yard. For the last five years, we have been dedicated to ideas promoting ​ the public’s use and enjoyment of Pier 5, a pivotal location that makes it “The Jewel of the Harbor.” Please see our mission statement. ​ ​ The Committee [NYP5] has met many local NGOs and stakeholders, as well as the three proponents. We have carefully reviewed all three proposals and their answers to questions. We advise the BPDA to reject the 6M Development and Navy Blue, LLC proposals. See our ​ letter to the BPDA on our website here. We explain our conclusions in the appendix portion of ​ ​ that letter. Although Urbanica’s proposal substantially satisfies the requirements of the RFP, the NYP5 ​ Committee cannot approve Urbanica’s proposal as-is because it brings potential adverse ​ effects to the neighborhood due to its height and operational and programming issues, as detailed below. We further believe that a mixed-income ownership model, coupled with ​ ​ live/work artist housing, should be prioritized for this site, rather than the current rental ​ proposal. The Committee believes these issues could possibly be remedied and would be open to evaluating any revised Urbanica option that fixes these issues, while the Committee also explores the viability of a non-commercial option. The Committee requests the BPDA grant a six-month period so the Committee can engage ​ with Urbanica, the BPDA, NGOs and community stakeholders to explore a ​ Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) model, as well as a non-commercial option to resolve these ​ issues, thereby achieving a win-win outcome for the City of Boston, the Charlestown Navy Yard, and the Charlestown community. During this six-month period, the Committee will explore undertaking a multi-million dollar fundraising campaign to support the best option. Our goal will be to elevate the Pier 5 project beyond the RFP to encompass it being part of a ​ holistic Charlestown Community Waterfront, which wraps in the currently neglected ​ Harborwalk, Drydock 2, and underutilized Piers 3 and 4. In this vision, Pier 5 would become the first major step of a larger effort toward building an inclusive and sustainable public waterfront for Charlestown. Charlestown has tremendous talent in our community willing to commit their time, energy, Page 1 of 7 Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee, 197 8th Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 www.NavyYardPier5.org | [email protected] ​ ​ ​ Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee FAQ and skills to achieve our positive vision: a community-built Pier 5. Even if you have previously ​ voted against the project, we hope you will reconsider after reading this. And we ask you to join our effort by becoming a co-creator in this project to help us realize ​ ​ Pier 5 as “The Jewel of the Harbor.” 2. What is the reasoning behind the NYP5 Committee’s position? There are multiple reasons for this conclusion. For those wanting to see all the detail, we suggest you read (a) the appendix to our letter to the BPDA letter (here) as well as (b) the ​ ​ ​ ​ questions and answers in this document. These reasons include things like: ​ - Restore the Pier: We believe it is essential to restore the historic pier, which is germane to ​ ​ the Navy Yard’s past and its status as a national historic landmark. - Restore Public Use: We believe it is of paramount importance to preserve public access to ​ this Head of the Harbor site. - Full Pier as a Park: The Urbanica proposal is the only proposal that returns virtually the ​ ​ entire footprint of the pier to the public realm. In our initial meetings with local non-profits, that was also an a priori condition for their potential involvement. - Harborwalk Expansion: The Urbanica proposal creates an additional 1,400 feet of ​ ​ Harborwalk. - Other Sources of Funds: Our research has not been able to uncover other sources of funds ​ ​ to tear down Pier 5 and build a ground-level park. The estimated cost of removing the pier is $9 million; the estimated cost of rebuilding the pier is more than $16 million, not including the cost for a landscaped park and its long-term maintenance and management. Note: If funding for such a project were to materialize during our proposed six month working period, we are very much open to the possibility of embracing a park. - Legality: The Urbanica proposal appears to be legal, so “just saying no” is not an option. ​ ​ 3. What’s the difference between the Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee (NavyYardPier5.org) and ​ ​ “Save Pier 5: Boston Navy-Yard” (Pier5.org)? ​ ​ It’s likely confusing that there are two different advocacy groups working hard on the Pier 5 project. Our group, NavyYardPier5.org, believes it is important to restore the historic pier, ​ ​ which is germane to the Navy Yard’s history and its landmark status. Secondly, we believe it is Page 2 of 7 Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee, 197 8th Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 www.NavyYardPier5.org | [email protected] ​ ​ ​ Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee FAQ of paramount importance to preserve the public realm on this Head of the Harbor site. On these two points, we are substantially in agreement with Pier5.org. Where we differ is that Pier5.org believes that any private development on the pier represents a “privatization of a public amenity,” while we believe there are multiple ways to achieve that paramount goal, including working with a developer, the BPDA, NGOs, and other community ​ groups in a community-building Public Private Partnership to achieve our goal. We concur ​ that the two floating housing proposals do represent a “privatization of a public amenity,” but we disagree that the same label applies to Urbanica’s proposal, which virtually returns the entire pier area to the public realm with its rooftop park. On the contrary, we believe that this innovative approach can be molded to make Pier 5 a one-of-a-kind destination park for ​ ​ Boston and Charlestown residents alike. Significantly, we differ from the Pier5.org group in that we are willing to fundraise to achieve ​ ​ our positive vision. 4. Will the Urbanica project obstruct the view of the harbor from the Harbor Walk? There is no denying Urbanica’s current design creates a view impact, both from the current Harbor Walk and for south-facing units at Flagship Wharf, particularly units on Levels 2 through 4 in the East Wing. Visual impact is one of the major design issues we intend to address with Urbanica. On the positive side, we commend the fact that, in addition to the rooftop park, Urbanica has created 1,400 feet of new Harbor Walk with unobstructed views of the harbor, along with a major public open space at the south (harbor) end of the pier. 5. Does Chapter 91 prohibit housing on Pier 5? Chapter 91, as modified by the 1991 Approval of the Boston Municipal Harbor Plan, does not ​ prohibit housing on Pier 5. Page 36 of the 1990 Boston MHP specifically states that ​ "residential uses shall be allowed only on Battery Wharf in the North End and on Pier 5 in the Charlestown Navy Yard," subject to certain restrictions and requirements to provide commensurate public benefits, all of which have been incorporated into the BPDA’s RFP. In essence, NYP5 accepts the premise that the RFP is legal, and that the BPDA is within its rights to issue the RFP and award the development rights to one of the developers. We prefer to ​ take the approach of positively influencing the direction of development, not only to ​ mitigate its potential negative impacts, but also to elevate it towards a bolder and better Page 3 of 7 Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee, 197 8th Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 www.NavyYardPier5.org | [email protected] ​ ​ ​ Navy Yard Pier 5 Committee FAQ outcome for the City of Boston, the Charlestown community, and the Charlestown Navy Yard. 6. Did the developer of Flagship Wharf agree to “swap” development rights on Pier 5 in exchange for the right to build the east and west wings? To our knowledge, no such agreement was made, and no such agreement exists. It is our understanding that the developer of Flagship Wharf did not build on Pier 5 due to the poor condition of Pier 5. 7. Is the Boston Municipal Harbor Plan valid? We are not in a position to judge the validity of the Boston Municipal Harbor Plan (MHP). According to public records, the 1990 Boston MHP was approved by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on May 22, 1991. (Link) The 1990 Boston MHP covers a vast "Harborpark ​ ​ District" of harborfront communities stretching from the Mystic River to the north to Neponset River down south. Each community within the Harborpark has submitted its own MHP, and an online search reveals that all of these MHPs, including the one governing Charlestown, reference Chapter 91 and the 1990 Boston MHP. Indeed, Flagship Wharf itself received a ​ Chapter 91 license consistent with the 1990 Boston MHP for the construction of its east and ​ west wings and underground garage. To claim that the 1990 Boston MHP is invalid would also invalidate the legal premise for all of these developments in the last 30 years. 8. If Michelle Wu is elected Mayor of Boston, won’t she eliminate the BPDA and then the city will build a park on Pier 5? We’ve gone down this path of reasoning. We think there is a good chance that Michelle Wu is ​ ​ elected Mayor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Navy Yard in Context
    DESIGNING AN INTEGRATED WATERFRONT: RESPONSIVE REDEVELOPMENT AT THE PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD by Elizabeth Woods B.A. Government Smith College, 2006 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEC REE OF MASTER IN CITY PLANNING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2012 ©2012 Elizabeth Woods. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to ARCHIVES distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. /l~ Signature of Author: (. S7~~epek U a' st udies and Planning t May 24, 2012 Certified by: Eran Ben-Joseph Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning Thesis Supervisor 14 Accepted by: Professor Alan Berger Chair, MCP Committee Department of Urban Studies and Planning Designing an Integrated Waterfront: Responsive Redevelopment at the Philadelphia Navy Yard by Elizabeth Woods Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 24, 2012 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in City Planning ABSTRACT Over the past half-century, the physical form and primary purpose of the American urban waterfront has profoundly changed. Due to the combined forces of de-industrialization, globalization, and military restructuring, urban waterfronts have transformed from industrial and manufacturing employment centers to tourist destinations, passive recreation areas, and luxury residential and corporate office districts. The wave of redevelopment efforts has resulted in a general sameness, both in physical design and economic function, across all urban waterfronts. The possibility of an integrated waterfront, in which traditional industrial and manufacturing uses intermingle with spaces for new non-industrial capital investment and public recreation and waterfront access, is the focus of this research.
    [Show full text]
  • The Closing of Military Bases in New England: Does the Military Ever Really Leave?
    John Mullin, et al., Int. J. of Herit. Archit., Vol. 2, No. 3 (2018) 425–433 THE CLOSING OF MILITARY BASES IN NEW ENGLAND: DOES THE MILITARY EVER REALLY LEAVE? JOHN MULLIN1, ZEENAT KOTVAL-K2 & ZENIA KOTVAL2 1University of Massachusetts, USA. 2Michigan State University, USA. ABSTRACT The physical and cultural patinas of military places are so fixed in the collective memories of New Eng- landers that well after closure, they remain part of our culture. At times, it may be that some military reserve functions remain, some military research is ongoing, or simply that the land, long ago con- taminated by fuel or the debris of weapons firing, is permanently off-limits. Other times, it may be the rigid precise layout of the barracks square, solidly built structures, or the placement of historic objects. The fact remains that military bases remain military in the region’s collective memory well after active forces have left. The paper begins with our examination of how New England military installations have been transformed since World War II. There are tens of installations that have been closed or dramati- cally changed since that time. We then determine, analyse and explain the characteristics that resulted in their having a continued military presence. Finally, we summarize our results to date. Keywords: base closings, military legacy, repurposing military bases. 1 INTRODUCTION Over the past 20 years, we have been involved, as academic researchers and planning consult- ants, in analysing the impacts of actual and potential military base closings throughout New England. At times, this work was simply to assess property records for the Boston Navy Yard, Massachusetts; undertake citizen participation exercises for the Portsmouth’s Naval Ship- yard, Kittery, Maine; prepare a master plan for Camp Edwards, Cape Cod, Massachusetts; analyse the market potential for development at Quonset Point, Rhode Island or determine fiscal impacts for development at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Class of 1981 New Student Handbook
    ()tJ~ 0 ~ @ ~ - ....... ,,,...... ~ @ It could almost begin "once upon a time." The necessary ingredi ents are there--a dream, a castle, a sense of ever after. But the tale is not a fable; it is the amazing story of Brandeis University. For more than a century American Jews had nurtured a dream of creating a university which evoked their ancient heritage of scholarship and their gratitude to a nation which offered them haven and freedom . On October 11, 1948, the dream became a reality. Th e first Jewish-sponsored, nonsectarian university in the United States, named in memory of Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis , opened its doors on the campus of what had been Middlesex Un iversity . Startling in contrast t o the few buildings which originally dotted the 250-acre campus stood--perhaps as a portend to future greatness--a castle .. This imposing structure, designed after medieval architecture, had been part of Middlesex. Known as the Usen Castle, it is still a campus landmark, but is now surrounded by 70 buildings--some perhaps more impressive, but none so unique . Dr . Abram L. Sachar, historian and teacher , became Brandeis' first president and served in that capacity for twenty years at which time he became chancellor of the University. His recently published book, A Host At Last, chronicles the fantas tic growth of Brandeis--thanks to the steadfast commi t ment and magnificent generosity of the American J ewish community. Dr . Marver H. Bernstein, former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princet on University, has been president since 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Historic Military Base Redevelopment Projects: the Presidio of San Francisco and Boston's Charlestown Navy Yard
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 2002 A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Historic Military Base Redevelopment Projects: The Presidio of San Francisco and Boston's Charlestown Navy Yard Megan Laurel Sorensen University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Sorensen, Megan Laurel, "A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Historic Military Base Redevelopment Projects: The Presidio of San Francisco and Boston's Charlestown Navy Yard" (2002). Theses (Historic Preservation). 439. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/439 Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Sorensen, Megan Laurel (2002). A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Historic Military Base Redevelopment Projects: The Presidio of San Francisco and Boston's Charlestown Navy Yard. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/439 For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Historic Military Base Redevelopment Projects: The Presidio of San Francisco and Boston's Charlestown Navy Yard Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Sorensen, Megan Laurel (2002). A Comparative Analysis of Two Urban Historic Military Base Redevelopment Projects: The Presidio of San Francisco and Boston's Charlestown Navy Yard. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/439 UNIVERSnYy PENNSYL\^\NIA.
    [Show full text]
  • World Dignitaries Who Have Visited USS Constitution
    World Dignitaries Who Have Visited USS Constitution 1797 September 20 President John Adams attended the first, failed, launch attempt of USS Constitution, Boston, MA 1811 President James Madison visited Constitution in Annapolis, MD 1822 May 21 George Gordon, Lord Byron, visited Constitution, Leghorn, Italy 1833 June 24 Vice President (and future president) Martin Van Buren attended the dry docking of Constitution in Dry Dock #1, Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston 1849 2 August Pope Pius IX visited USS Constitution, the first Roman Catholic Pontiff to step foot on United States territory King Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies also visited Constitution at the same time as Pope Pius IX 1869 26 May President Ulysses S. Grant visited Constitution at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 1880 11 November President Rutherford B. Hayes and his Cabinet visited Constitution, Philadelphia Navy Yard 1925 8 August President & Mrs. Calvin Coolidge and Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, visited Constitution; they sailed into Boston Harbor from Marblehead aboard the presidential yacht Mayflower 1931 11 November President & Mrs. Herbert Hoover and Secretary of the Navy Charles Francis Adams visited on Armistice Day, Washington Navy Yard, while Constitution was on her National Cruise (1931-34) 1932 President Hoover visited a second time, Washington Navy Yard 1940 10 August President Franklin D. Roosevelt visited the Boston Navy Yard & boarded USS Constitution for a tour World Dignitaries – USS Constitution – July, 2016 Page 1 1943 23 September The Duke of Windsor, the former Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, visited Constitution for a tour; the Union Jack flew from a masthead 1962 1 August General Douglas MacArthur, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Accidents 1945-1988, Neptune Papers No. 3
    -- Neptune Papers -- Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945 - 1988 by William M. Arkin and Joshua Handler Greenpeace/Institute for Policy Studies Washington, D.C. June 1989 Neptune Paper No. 3: Naval Accidents 1945-1988 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Nuclear Weapons Accidents......................................................................................................... 3 Nuclear Reactor Accidents ........................................................................................................... 7 Submarine Accidents .................................................................................................................... 9 Dangers of Routine Naval Operations....................................................................................... 12 Chronology of Naval Accidents: 1945 - 1988........................................................................... 16 Appendix A: Sources and Acknowledgements........................................................................ 73 Appendix B: U.S. Ship Type Abbreviations ............................................................................ 76 Table 1: Number of Ships by Type Involved in Accidents, 1945 - 1988................................ 78 Table 2: Naval Accidents by Type
    [Show full text]
  • People and Ships Two Years Before the Mast
    HDT WHAT? INDEX PEOPLE AND SHIPS TWO YEARS BEFORE THE MAST A The Ship Achilles British Registry Built at Sunderland, England, 1854 578 tons in displacement. Adams, The Reverend Nehamiah, Jr. (1806-1878): In 1834, he left the “Shepherd Congregational Society” to become pastor of the Essex Street Church in Boston. The Ship Admittance American Registry 501 tons in displacement. On the California coast, 1843-1845 Alemany, The Reverend Joseph S.: Archbishop of San Francisco in 1859. The Ship Alert American Registry Built at Boston in 1828 under the direction of master carpenter Noah Brooks 18 2 decks, 3 masts, 398 /99ths tons in displacement 113 feet 4 inches X 28 feet X 14 feet Square stern, no galleries, billet head Owners, 1828: Alfred Richardson, Boston, and Theodore Lyman, Waltham MA Owners, 1830-1843: William Sturgis, John Bryant, and various associates, Boston Owners, 1843-1860: Henry P. Havens, Thomas W. Williams, and various associates, of New London CT Vessel was engaged in whaling Apparently bark rigged in 1856 Owner, 1862: C.H. Chapell, New London CT September 9, 1862: Captured and burned by CSS Alabama Washington Allston WASHINGTON ALLSTON (1779-1843): Uncle by marriage of Richard Henry Dana, Jr. Amerzene, Andrew B. (1806-1838): The 1st Mate of the Pilgrim, born in Epsom NH and a resident of Portsmouth NH. 1 At the time of Richard Henry Dana, Jr.’s voyage he was 28 years of age. 5 feet 8 /2 inches tall, of light complexion with brown hair. Returned to Boston aboard the Alert. The Ship Ann McKim American Registry 1833: Built at Baltimore MD 494 tons in displacement.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 267 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 410Z $17,000,000 (1970
    Page 267 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 410z $17,000,000 (1970 prices) for development, plus or executed, he may establish the Boston National minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified Historical Park by publication of notice to that by reason of ordinary fluctuations in construc- effect in the Federal Register, together with a tion costs as indicated by engineering cost indi- detailed description or map setting forth the ces applicable to the types of construction in- properties included therein. volved herein. (d) Charlestown Navy Yard (Pub. L. 91–664, § 8, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1980; Pub. As used in this section, the Charlestown Navy L. 95–625, title III, § 320, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. Yard shall include the United States Ship Con- 3488.) stitution and the lands generally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Boundary Map: Charlestown AMENDMENTS Naval Shipyard—U.S.S. Constitution, Boston 1978—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–625 substituted National Historical Park’’, numbered BONA ‘‘$28,400,000’’ for ‘‘$20,400,000’’. 20,000 and dated March 1974 which shall be on file SUBCHAPTER LVII—BOSTON NATIONAL and available in the offices of the Director of the HISTORICAL PARK National Park Service, Department of the Inte- rior, Washington, D.C. As used in this section, § 410z. Establishment the Charlestown Navy Yard shall also include the properties known as the Ropewalk and Tar (a) Acquisition of properties by donation or with House and the Chain Forge and Round House, donated funds designated on such map as buildings numbered In order to preserve for the benefit and inspi- 58, 60, and 105.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom Trail
    The Freedom Trail The Freedom Trail is sponsored by The Spirit of Adventure Council, in conjunction with the Boston Chamber of Commerce. It was officially opened as an authorized historic trail of the Boy Scouts of America on May 28, 1972. Participation in the Freedom Trail hike is intended to help Cubs Scouts, Scouts and Explorers, as well as parents and unit leaders become more aware of the historic significance of Boston, Massachusetts and its role in American heritage. The Trail The Freedom Trail is a 2.5 mile hike through two and a half centuries of America's past in downtown Boston. It begins at the Boston Commons Visitor Information Center on Tremont St. near the Park St. MBTA station. Park St. can be reached using the MBTA Red and Green lines. The trail ends at the U.S.S. Constitution in Charlestown. This walking tour permits visitors to discover more than sixteen historical sites. The trail is marked by a red line painted on the sidewalk that will lead you from site to site. Note: You are not required to pay admission at sites to earn the trail awards. Also, on• street parking is hard to find in downtown Boston and parking lot prices can be expensive. We suggest using the MBTA as an alternative to driving into Boston. Requirements Registered youth and adult members of the BSA can qualify for the Freedom Trail Awards. All hikers must wear as much of the official uniform as possible. BSA policy requires two (2) adult leaders on all trips and tours.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston at the Time, Rapidly Spread Information to Show That Germany’S Atrocities in Belgium and France Clearly Could Not Be Compared to What Happened in Ireland
    This article originally appeared in the May, 2009 edition of Over the Top: Magazine of the World War I Centennial; available at www.Worldwar1.com. The version below contains updates and corrections. Thanks to Mike Hanlon for permission to reprint. 1 City at War - Boston During the World War I Years 1914-1918 By Anatole Sykley Major General Clarence Edwards Leads the Yankee Division in a parade after the war in early 1919, Photo by Leslie Jones Introduction The wartime contributions and accomplishments of Boston, Though they trained hard and fast, utilizing the training experience of the Massachusetts, during the First World War still seem remarkable nearly a 76th Division who trained at Camp Devens just before them, would not get century later. The Great War injected new life into the city and stimulated to fight. General Pershing tried to cheer them up by stating the Germans her diverse, patriotic mix of peoples, economically as well as intellectually. gave up when they heard the 12th was coming. The 12th Division was the Boston led the debate on the nation's response to the hostilities and its third and last infantry division Massachusetts and Boston and the other New later involvement. Despite suffering an economic decline prior to 1914, the England States had helped raise for the war effort--a relatively high and Bay City also would find ways to support many important war industries: expensive effort in manpower for a state with only 3,500,000 people of exporting critical food and supplies to the European nations; manufacturing which 40% were Bostonians.
    [Show full text]
  • First Night Boston 2019
    VOL. 122 - NO. 52 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, DECEMBER 28, 2018 $.35 A COPY First Night Boston 2019 MONDAY, DECEMBER 31ST AT&T Store, Boylston Street, 699 Boylston St., Boston, MA 1:30pm-1:45pm — Rhema Boston Common, 139 Tremont St., Boston, MA Heywood — Copley Sq., 560 Boston Harbor, Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA Boylston St., Boston, MA Boston Public Library, Johnson Building, Boylston St., 1:45pm-1:55pm — Emily Newsfeed Café, 700 Boylston St., Boston, MA Ruskowksi — Copley Sq., 560 Boston Public Library – McKim Building (Dartmouth St.), Boylston St., Boston, MA McKim Exhibition Hall, Boston Public Library, 700 Boylston St., 1:45pm-2:15pm — Puppet Boston, MA Showplace Theater — Boston Copley Place Mall (100 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA Public Library — McKim Building Copley Square, 560 Boylston St., Boston, MA 2:00pm-2:30pm — BJ First Church of Christ, Scientist, 210 Massachusetts Ave., Snowden — Boston Public Boston, MA Library – Johnson Building Old South Church, 645 Boylston St., Boston, MA 2:00pm-2:30pm — Four Trinity Church, 206 Clarendon St., Boston, MA Shadow — Copley Square Chadwick Stokes and the 2:00pm-2:45pm — Boston Pintos Sax Quartet — Copley Place 12:00pm-12:15pm — Sonika 12:15pm-12:45pm — Puppet 2:15pm-3:00pm — Improv Puppet Showplace Theater Vaid, Boston Public Library, Showplace Theater — Boston Campbell — Boston Public Boston — Boston Public Library Johnson Building Public Library — McKim Building Library – Johnson Building – Johnson Building Boston — Boston Public Library 12:00pm-12:30pm — DB 12:30pm-1:15pm — Sweet 1:00pm-1:30pm
    [Show full text]
  • Broadside 2006 Boston National Historical Park Mary Bomar Sworn in As National Park Service Director
    the Number 2 broadside 2006 boston national historical park Mary Bomar Sworn In As National Park Service Director BOSTON NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK Superinten- dent Terry W. Savage was among the 200 National Park Service employees and public officials present in Philadelphia's historic Congress Hall on October 3, 2006, when Northeast Regional Director Mary A. Bomar was sworn in as the 17th Director of the National Park Service. On September 30, 2006, Bomar had been confirmed by the United States Senate as the next Director of the National Park Service. Bomar was nominated by President George W. Bush to head the Park Service after Director Fran Mainella an- nounced her resignation in July. Bomar, a British native who became a U.S. citizen in 1977, has been with the National Park Service for seventeen years, With her hand resting on an 18th-century Bible held by her husband Milton including posts as Acting Superintendent at Rocky Mountain Bomar (right), Mary A. Bomar takes the oath of office as Director of the National Park and Superintendent at the Oklahoma City National Park Service from Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. National Memorial. Upon her nomination, Bomar said, “Mere words cannot express how honored I am to be nominated as the 17th Director of the National Park Service by the President of the United States. For this ‘American by Choice’ it is the ultimate honor to be entrusted with the care of the crown jewels of America—our national parks. I will be proud to lead a passionate, committed, professional workforce working to ensure a wonderful experience for visitors today and for the generations yet to come.” Bomar has been the National Park Service Northeast Regional Director since July 2005.
    [Show full text]