Boston University’s plans to construct a new sailing pavilion on the Esplanade were further complicated this week by a state review citing dissatisfaction with the University’s two preferred sites.
Responding to BU’s November assessment of the potential pavilion sites, the Office of Environmental Affairs maintained the University’s preferred sites might dissuade people from visiting the heavily used portion of the Esplanade behind the University’s campus. Furthermore, the certificate claimed the sites could cause damage to the landscape of the historic area.
BU had identified two sites, known officially as Sites 2 and 4, as the preferred locations for the project. The sites are located on the west and east sides of the central lobe between the Harvard and BU bridges, respectively.
“It is conceivable … that fewer people would actually visit the area, should the new facility be constructed at Site 2 or 4, due to reduced open space and tranquillity, creation of shadows and obstructed views,” Environmental Secretary Bob Durand wrote in the certificate, released Monday.
Durand said the site with the fewest environmental impacts and the greatest potential for public benefits would be a stretch of Esplanade land further downstream from the two sites, just west of the Charlesgate overpass. That area, known officially as Site 5, is currently underutilized, Durand said. A new pavilion, accompanied by such amenities as restrooms, telephones and a food concession area, would attract more people to the site, he said.
BU spokesman Kevin Carleton said the University will take its time in reviewing and responding to the secretary’s report. He maintained, however, the University believes the two cites along the central lobe remain the best option. By the University’s account, he said, the pavilion and its accompanying amenities would better serve the community where they are easily accessible.
“If we are providing public amenities, we should think that they would best be placed where the public could most easily access them,” Carleton said. “[Site 5 is] underutilized because of the distance people need to go to get there … We believe it would be more advantageous to the public to be in that central area.”
Site 5 is about a 15-minute walk from Marsh Plaza, whereas the University’s preferred sites are five and 10 minutes from the same point, respectively. According to BU’s report, any site must be located within a 10-minute walk from the center of campus, or else students may risk being late for a subsequent class.
Carleton also noted Site 5 is the furthest point from any means of pedestrian access along the space between the Harvard and Massachusetts Avenue bridges. As the site would take time to access, Carleton said students may be tempted to cross Storrow Drive by hopping the fence, which he said would create a safety hazard.
“Given the complexity of the interchange there, that’s even riskier than trying to cross as students do now from time to time at the site of the existing pavilion,” he said. “I hate to see the kind of risks that people might take from doing that.”
Durand acknowledged the site’s distance from the school may cause an inconvenience for BU students; however, he notes the location would not affect varsity, recreational and high school sailors. Ultimately, he said, BU’s wants must be weighed against the concerns of the larger community.
“The need for quick access during the academic year must be balanced against the preservation of areas that provide wider public benefits through year-round access to and use of the riverfront waterpark,” Durand wrote. “The time difference must be evaluated in the broader public context.”
Jim Hunt, assistant secretary to Durand, said the Office of Environmental Affairs’ decision does not eliminate BU’s chance of receiving the site it wants.
“I don’t think we ruled out anything, but I think there was a strong preference for Site 5,” he said.
Robert Zimmerman, Jr., executive director of the Charles River Watershed Association, however, called the secretary’s decision a victory for his organization, which has voiced intense opposition to the University’s plans since the BU first submitted its proposal.
“This is a done deal. If Boston University thinks they’re going to get this through the Legislature, I think they’re very mistaken,” Zimmerman said. “I don’t think any environmental agency will permit any other site [than site 5] unless compelling evidence comes forward.”
In November, the CRWA released an independent analysis of the alternative sites, finding Site 5 one of two preferable options. The other site, located between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the DeWolfe Boathouse on the Cambridge side of the Charles River, has been criticized by BU as both unsafe and too distant for students to access. Durand agreed with the University’s position, writing, “Cambridge appears too remote a location for the facility, and it poses boating safety issues.”
“Many of the critics have agreed that some location on the Boston side makes sense,” Carleton said. “I think once the final report is submitted, with the exception of those very few people that say it ought to be in Cambridge, we’ll essentially be in agreement on this budget.”
Zimmerman said the CRWA would continue to fight the University, although discussion has been all but cut off between the two. On more than one occasion, he said, the CRWA has tried to talk with BU about the plan, but nothing came from the attempts.
“There’s no animosity on our part,” he said. “It’s just that the University didn’t want to work with us on this one.”
Carleton said BU plans to continue reaching out to the community for feedback and may consult with Durand before submitting its final report. However, there will be no further discussion with the CRWA.
“We take the secretary’s comments very seriously; the Charles River Watershed Association has lost all credibility with us,” he said.
“I think we’re always open to the possibility of compromise, but a compromise needs to be reasonable,” Carleton said. “I have not seen evidence that many of the critics of this process have been reasonable thus far.”
Hunt said the University would dictate the time frame of the remainder of the process. However, he predicted a solution is not far away.
“I don’t think it’s going to last a while,” he said. “It’s not a complex project, so in terms of them putting together information, it shouldn’t be a protracted process.”
Carleton said further analysis will be necessary before the University will proceed with submitting a final report. Ultimately, however, the Legislature’s ruling will favor the University, he said.
“I think in general they recognize that there is a public benefit to the Boston University boathouse being relocated,” he said. “They will probably wait until a final report is made before making any decision, but I think in general the Legislature will support this.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
