Boston Bulletin Reports on BC Neighbors Forum:

The Boston Bulletin ran a story last week about the community meetings of the Boston College Neighbors Forum, focusing on the issues of undergraduate dormitories and athletic facilities.

There is a small error in the reporting:

While Pahre said the [BC Neighbors Forum] supported artificial turf for the athletic fields, they opposed the idea for the stadium field due to issues with flooding, drainage and pollution.

Actually, the group didn't directly address the general question of the use of artificial turf for any athletic fields, but certainly did not support "artificial turf for the athletic fields" within the Brighton Campus. What the attendees did support was continued informal use (e.g., intramural) by Boston College of the fields in their current state (i.e., with natural turf).

Press Coverage of BC Neighbors Forum Meetings

The Boston Globe's City Weekly section ran a story in today's Sunday paper about the recent meetings of the BC Neighbors Forum. There were also a few quotes from BC officials, like this one:

Also planned for the land are a 14,000-square-foot sports support facility and a 200-space garage, according to Jack Dunn, Boston College director of public affairs. Dunn said the 2,000- seat baseball stadium, which is 1,500 seats larger than the current field near Chestnut Hill Reservoir, will still be one of the smallest baseball stadiums in the Atlantic Coast Conference, which BC joined two years ago.

A few comments:

1. Yay! New accuracy in describing the stadium as "one of the smallest" in the ACC, rather than the smallest.
2. The square footage of the sports support facilities is a little bit misleading, in that it includes the "support facility" building and the parking spaces in the parking garage, but does not include the additional square footage of the enclosed tennis courts on the top floor of the parking garage.
   
3. Now... about that 14,000-square-foot support facility: Why does their master plan's visual describe the facility as "25,000+ sq. ft."? (See #39 in image below.) This "14,000 sq.ft." statement was also made by a different BC official during the April 21, 2007 walking tour. Possibly they have decided to downsize the facility since their presentation in mid-March 2007... or they are mixed up on the details of their own master plan. I think BC needs to straighten this one out.
   

Lights and BC's Proposed Baseball Stadium

At Monday's public meeting of the BC Neighbors Forum, the lighting for BC's proposed baseball stadium was discussed. The lights will presumably be the 80-foot field lighting standard (ref 1, 2), but it's hard to get a feeling of what that height would entail at the site.

I went a couple of blocks away from the proposed site of the stadium to Rogers Park, property owned and managed by Boston Parks and Recreation Department. This park has a baseball and softball field is heavily used during the April-October season, and has field lights for nighttime practices and games. Using GoogleEarth, I measured off the distances for both the Brighton Campus and Rogers Park photo locations in order to get a match within roughly 5%. I then simply placed the Rogers Park field lights on top of the picture of the Brighton Campus location proposed for the baseball stadium:



Lane Park houses can be seen on the left-hand-side of the image.

Several points are clear from this image composite:

1. The field lights will extend above the tall, old-growth trees (on the left) which lie between the proposed stadium and the abutting houses at Lane Park.
2. The lights appear high enough that they will shine over those trees to illuminate more houses on Lane Park than just the direct abutters.
3. The photo of the proposed baseball stadium site was taken during the April 21, 2007 walking tour of the Brighton Campus (former Seminary property), hence the lack of tree foliage directly shows how the trees themselves will not block the field lights from the direct abutters during the standard April -- early May baseball season.

As a side note: the proposed baseball stadium will presumably be 40-50 feet high, which would extend to the top of the neighboring houses (or slightly above), based on a roughly 15-foot difference in grade between the field and Lane Park.

ACC Baseball Stadiums

Here are a few viewgraphs that were presented as part of tonight's BC Neighbors Forum public meeting. More to come later...


Question #1: Does BC need to orient the baseball stadium in order to keep home plate in the SW corner?


Answer: ACC stadiums are oriented in all different directions. Orientation is clearly not a driving factor in their design. Statements made at the 3/20/07 BC Task Force meeting appear to have been misleading.

Question #2: Was it true when a BC official said on 3/20/07 that even with a 2000-seat stadium, BC would still have the smallest baseball stadium in the ACC?

Florida State: 6700 seats
Clemson: 3500 seats (5617 with hillside seating/standing)
NC State: 2200 seats
Wake Forest: 2500 seats
Boston College: TBD
Maryland: 2500 seats
Virginia: 2000 seats
North Carolina: 2000 seats + 1000 on embankment
Georgia Tech: 4157 seats, can expand to 5000
Miami: 4235-5000 seats?
Duke: 2000 seats
Virginia Tech: 1033 seats

Answer: The BC official was factually in error. Virginia Tech has a smaller stadium at 1033 seats, and BC's 2000-seat stadium would actually tie them for 9th place (3-way tie with UVA and UNC).

Note that during the April 25, 2007 subcommittee meeting of the BC Task Force, a BC official noted that 2000 seats are a minimum requirement of the ACC for tournament games, not for regular season games.

The University of Virginia baseball stadium was suggested as a good example of BC's proposal for their new baseball stadium. The design for the UVa stadium can be found here, and here is an example:


IMHO, rather ugly. But functional, I guess. An alternative view:



The field lights are roughly 80-feet high. So the stadium appears to be 40 (or 50) feet high by comparison. The grade between the field and Lane Park is roughly 15 feet, so a structure like this would stick up roughly as high as the tops of the houses along Lane Park.

BC Neighbors Forum: Public Meeting Monday, April 30 at 7:00pm

An extensive, visual presentation of BC's proposals for athletic facilities will start the meeting.  New information will be presented on:

• Baseball stadium sizes and orientations across the ACC: are the requirements necessary?
  
• Is there space to move the stadium away from houses?
• How tall is the lighting compared to neighboring houses?
• Possible chemical dangers to ground water posed by astro-turf
  

The goal of the meeting is to develop community consensus on
issues related to athletics facilities in BC's master plan:

• Baseball stadium: 2000 seat
• Softball stadium: 500 seat
• Multipurpose field(s)
• Athletic support facility: 25,000+ square feet
• Parking garage / tennis courts: 160-200 spaces

Neighbors of Rogers Park (and members of the Friends of Rogers Park) have been specially invited to attend the meeting in order to provide their insight into what it is like to live near to lighted baseball fields.


Boston College Neighbors Forum:  Public Meeting

Monday, April 30, 7:00 pm
Brighton Elks Lodge
326 Washington Street

Brighton residents are invited to attend a community meeting to
analyze and discuss the details of the Boston College development
plans.  The meeting will take place on Monday, April 30th, 7:00 pm,
at the Brighton Elks Lodge, 326 Washington Street, Brighton Center.

The Boston College Neighbors Forum is an unaffiliated, independent
grassroots discussion group.  The goal of the meeting is to build a
consensus in the community on issues of common concern, and to
eventually prepare formal community feedback to BC and the City of
Boston.

The April 30 meeting will focus on BC plans to construct athletic
fields and/or stadiums on their "Brighton Campus" (i.e., the former
Archdiocese property), and related buildings.

Public participation is strongly encouraged and all residents will be
afforded an opportunity to speak as time permits.  A subsequent
meeting will be scheduled in mid-May to discuss other aspects of BC
plans (e.g., the proposed re-routing of Saint Thomas More Road).

For more information, Michael Pahre at 617-216-1447 or
pahre@comcast.net; or visit the GoogleGroup at
http://groups.google.com/group/BC_Neighbors_Forum .


For background on the athletics facilities proposals, see this blog entry.

Pictures from the Walking Tour of BC's Brighton Campus: I. Athletic Facilities

The community-led walking tour of Boston College's Brighton Campus (former Archdiocese land) took place on Saturday, April 21. The tour was led by Charlie Vasiliades and Wilma Wetterstrom and focused on viewing the open space, inspecting the topological features, and discussing the history of the site. Questions arose about particular proposals in BC's master plan, which were fielded by Tom Keady and Jeanne Levesque of BC's Office of Governmental and Community Affairs. A total of 40-50 people attended at some point during the tour, including from the BC Task Force and elected officials.

Most attendees appeared struck by the great beauty of a few particular locations in the tour, especially the hill with the former Cardinal's tomb (slated for demolition), the view from the Cardinal's former residence and the adjacent meadow/orchard, and the forested sections bordering Lake Street. Immense quantities of broken glass all over the Foster Rock were disappointing, however.

Here are some images taken during the tour of the athletic fields site. Below each one is a satellite picture and BC's March 2007 master plan, both with the approximate vantage point of the image identified.

Baseball Stadium [front] and Support Building [rear]



Baseball stadium: 2000-seats, press box, lights (80-foot?), artificial turf, etc.
Support building: see below.

BC's artist's conception from similar orientation (but much more elevated), although note that the support building design, as well as the softball stadium location, have changed since this drawing was made:




Support Building



Coaches offices, workout rooms, batting cages, lockers, restrooms, concessions.
A little bit difficult to see due to the enclosed parking lots in the foreground.

Brighton Fields Parking Garage and Racquetball Courts [roof]



Note that the new building would be on the RHS and off-image to the right of my picture (and will be much bigger and taller than the existing building in the picture).

160-200 parking spaces on two levels. Enclosed racquetball (i.e., tennis) on top.

Multipurpose Field



Intramurals, etc.


BC Magazine ran a slideshow in 2004 which has photos of the Brighton Campus from various perspectives.

Baseball Stadium: Just "Lights and Seats"

The Allston-Brighton TAB ran a story on the field vs. stadium linguistic affair, in which a BC official was quoted:

Said Tom Keady, BC’s vice president for community affairs: “The only difference between the existing field on the site and the one we’re proposing is that it will have lights and seats.” Keady noted that the conceptual design at this stage also included building an adjacent structure containing coaches’ offices, batting cages and a weight room.

Only adding lights and seats... and a 25,000+ square foot building, too.

I think he overlooked a few things. Let's list all the changes, at least those we've been told about at the most recent BC Task Force meeting (March 20, 2007, see this posting).

The proposed baseball and softball stadiums, and the multi-purpose field, will change the site in the following ways:

1. Lights (80-foot high? [1] [2]), how many watts?
   
2. Seats (2000 for baseball, 500 for softball)
   
3. Field building (offices, batting cages, training and weight room, locker rooms, concessions, restrooms), approximately 25,000+ square feet
4. Press box (baseball), maybe another for softball?
   
5. Three fences, one surrounding each stadium plus the multi-purpose field, with locked gates
   
6. Astroturf, instead of natural turf, on both stadiums and possibly also on the multi-purpose field
   
7. One to three underground storage tanks for water runoff prevented from entering the water table due to the impervious astroturf surfaces
8. Parking garage next door to support the usage 46,200 square feet [including roof tennis courts?], 160 parking spaces.
9. High nets to catch foul balls to keep them from hitting Lane Park bedroom windows.
   

#5 means that what is currently "open space" will become "locked space," and #6 means that what is currently "green space" will become "artificial space." #8 is a consequence of BC's requirement (b) for the athletic fields (i.e., to have adjacent parking for athletic facilities) in their presentation to the task force on March 20, 2007.

Seems a little bit more complicated than just "lights and seats."

Baseball Field? Or Stadium?

At the March 20, 2007 meeting of the BC Task Force, the BC presenters (and their planning associates from Sasaki) repeatedly referred to the baseball thing they wanted to build on the former Archdiocese property as a baseball "field," despite the fact that it would include 2000-seats for spectators. The same terminology of "field" was used for the 500-seat softball "field" and the no-seat "multipurpose-field."

A member of the public queried them directly on this linguistic usage, to which they replied (approximately): "You say stadium, I say field. OK."

A simple definition of stadium found on the web is: "A large, usually open structure for sports events with tiered seating for spectators." Their proposal sure sounds like a stadium to any reasonable person with basic knowledge of the english language.

Why did they use the term "baseball field" instead of the obvious "baseball stadium"?

The site of their proposed baseball stadium/field is classified by the underlying (or "base") zoning as "CPS" (Conservation Protection Subdistrict):


Here is an extract of the zoning from Article 51's Table A, where the letters under column "CPS" refer to "A" (allowed), "C" ("conditional"-ly allowed), and "F" (forbidden):

Even if BC were to claim that the former Archdiocesan property were to be now included as part of the BC institutional subdistrict overlay (a highly questionable assertion and an involved subject that will be addressed in future postings!!!), it wouldn't matter: Article 51, Table C, which spells out the zoning for BC's institutional subdistrict, has the same use limitations on "stadium" versus "grounds for sports, private."

See the obvious thing here? A "stadium" is "F" (or "Forbidden") in a CPS zoned site (or BC institutional subdistrict), while "grounds for sports, private" (fenced-in field) is "C" (or "Conditionally-allowed").

The BC planners and their associates appear to be deliberately using the term "field" instead of "stadium" in order to slip a forbidden use under the zoning code through a conditionally-allowed use.

Instead of deliberately obfuscating the issue, BC's planners should be straight-forward with the BRA, the Zoning Board, and the A-B community by using the terms "baseball stadium" and "softball stadium," since the term stadium is a specific and technical one. The term has a clear meaning within the zoning for the site, and has direct consequences on the allowed uses for the site. Since their upcoming IMPNF (and project PNFs) will generally require regulatory approval of the Zoning Board, this means that their proposals are fundamentally related to zoning issues. They should use the zoning term "stadium" correctly in their public filings and presentations to the public. And I hope they are up-front in the future by declaring that they will need to seek a zoning variance to build a baseball stadium on the site.

For everyone in the Allston-Brighton community: we should always use the term "stadium" when referring to the proposed baseball and softball construction projects, and we should hold BC to that standard, too.



See this previous post for a figure which shows where these various "fields" are proposed to be sited.

The BRA's website has the zoning code including maps.

Boston College's Athletics Plans: Summary

At the Boston College Task Force meeting on Tuesday, March 20, 2007, Boston College planners and their partners at Sasaki Associates presented a housing plan for the next ten years of their development and expansion.

Below is my notated version of the visual that they displayed at the meeting:



A PDF version of the figure can be found attached to the post at the GoogleGroup BC_Neighbors_Forum.


SUMMARY OF ATHLETICS PRESENTATION

BC presented a series of five sets of construction related to
athletics: varsity, intramural, and informal recreation.

PDF attached.

The order of the projects appears to be roughly sequential, but may
not be strictly so. (#3 and #4a would seem an appropriate swap.)

I have kept BC's numbering scheme with the following modifications:
* split #1 into a, b, and c.
* split #2 into a and b.
* added #4b (parking addition next to Alumni Stadium [football].

(1)(a) Baseball Stadium: 2000 seat capacity, probably on benches.
Press box behind home plate. Put into natural features of site.
Approximately 50 feet elevation difference between field and
neighboring houses to south (according to statements made in February
20, 2007 meeting). Will be fully lit for night games and practices.
At previous meeting, expressed willingness to only hold 10-ish night
practices and 10-ish night games per year, but no such statement at
this meeting. Games occur April-May on Friday/Saturday nights and
Saturday/Sunday afternoons. Artificial turf (astroturf). Underground
tanks to be built to collect storm water in order to release slowly
back into water table. Will be fully fenced, gated, and locked off.
Limited community usage will be allowed -- only approved, organized
activities (no pick-up games). 2000 seat capacity would still be
lowest-capacity baseball stadium in ACC.

(1)(b) Softball Stadium: 500 seat capacity, probably on benches.
Will be fully lit for night games and practices. Unclear months for
games. Artificial turf (astroturf). Underground tanks (like baseball
stadium). Will be fully fenced, gated, and locked off. Unclear
community usage.

(1)(c) Multipurpose Field. Intramural sports, club sports, informal
recreation. Unsure if will be natural or artificial turf. If
artificial turf, then have underground tanks (like baseball stadium).
Will be fully fenced, gated, and locked off. Unclear community usage.

(2)(a) Support Building. Lockers, concessions, batting cages,
offices, restrooms. 25,000 square feet (sf).

(2)(b) Parking Garage and Tennis Courts. Built adjacent to hillside;
some discussion about how the hillside would be respected, but details
murky. Two levels of parking with 160 spaces. Tennis courts built
onto top of building.

(3) Recreation Center. After Edmonds Hall is demolished, will make
way for Recreation Center to be built on the site. Recreational
usage, multipurpose, primarily oriented to student use. 200,000 sf.

(4)(a) Shea Fields. Removal of baseball and softball fields from
site. Reconfiguration of remaining fields into 2 1/2 football
practice fields. Part of existing field space will have dorms built
onto it (see housing slide and discussion). Underground tanks to be
built to collect storm water in order to release slowly back into
water table. Unclear if natural or artificial surface.

(4)(b) Expansion of Beacon Street Parking Garage. Not discussed at
the meeting (presumably will be at next meeting on traffic, parking,
and transportation), but is part of the athletic support building
program nonetheless. 350 new parking spaces to be added.

(5) Newton Fields Support Building. Near to BC Law School in Newton.
8,500 sf.


Alternate visual