The Future of Boston Courts (2417)
Without a Comprehensive Plan in Place for Relocation, The Permanent Home of Major Downtown Courts are Still a Mystery
Like an impoverished tenant about to get booted from an apartment, the Suffolk Superior Court knows it is living on borrowed time.
Holed up in the old federal courthouse in Boston since last year, court officials will likely be on the move again when the state’s five-year lease of the building expires in February 2004.
That’s less than four years away virtually a snap-of-the-finger in construction time.
And while Trial Court officials and state planners meet regularly to discuss the issue, no concrete plan or even a timetable is on the immediate horizon to permanently house the Superior Court or the Boston Municipal Court. (Next January the BMC is expected to join the Superior Court in the old federal courthouse.)
As a result, a growing unease is emerging among some judges and bar leaders that the clock is ticking and the planning stage is adrift.
And if state and court officials are banking on the federal government extending the lease to ease the time crunch, they may need to reconsider.
Nancy E. O’Connell, regional counsel for the General Services Administration, the landlord for the old federal courthouse, insists that the federal government is dead-set on moving various federal agencies into the building once the current lease expires.
She says the agencies currently dispersed in and around downtown Boston all face lease expiration’s over the next few years.
Officials from the Division of Capital Asset Management, the state agency overseeing courthouse projects around the state, admit that it’s highly unlikely a permanent home will ready when the lease ends.
Commissioner David B. Perini, appointed in May to head DCAM, says “just on its face, it sounds difficult given the whole process of what’s required, including site selection and all the technicalities involved. The practical reality of doing something in less than four years is not great.”
But O’Connell stresses that “it will be extremely problematic if the state courts do not vacate [the old federal courthouse] in a timely manner at the end of the lease term. There’s nothing illusory about our need for that space. The state tenants have to pay attention to that.”
Perini, former CEO of Perini Corp., a major player in the construction industry, sounds a hopeful note that a deal extending the lease can be struck with the GSA.
Nonetheless, he says “we’re not totally at the whim of the GSA. There are other options if by chance we couldn’t work something out with the GSA.”
But no specific options are currently under consideration, according to Perini.
A Superior Court judge who requested anonymity admits that his colleagues appear to believe that “we’re [in the old federal courthouse] until we figure out what we’re doing. An unstated assumption is that [the federal government] will roll over the lease until the siting is resolved.”
Superior Court Judge Patrick L. King says “we’re all concerned what’s going to happen once the lease ends. But possession is nine-tenths of the law. What are they going to do, put [us] out on the street?”
Stephen J. Hines, deputy commissioner of DCAM, says at the close of the lease he expects the state “would be well under way with a solution where the GSA would have full confidence what was going to happen.”
With such assurances, Hines says, the federal government would be more inclined to extend the lease with a firm end date in mind.
Moving Forward
Perini says his office and Trial Court leaders are devoting “a high level of focus and concern in coming to some sort of decision.”
Barbara A. Dortch-Okara, chief justice for administration and management, who meets monthly with DCAM representatives, says she is “pressing DCAM to pin down the various options so I can sit down with the Superior Court and the BMC to discuss it.”
The judge hopes to have this information “by the end of the year, but I’m pressing to get it much sooner.”
DCAM is not willing to commit to a specific time frame for selecting a site, however, Perini says.
Suzanne V. DelVecchio, chief justice of the Superior Court, is unconcerned that a definitive siting plan isn’t yet formulated.
“The process is moving forward. Things have been moving along,” DelVecchio claims. “There’s been a lot of discussions [between court officials and DCAM]. It’s not like people are just waiting around.”
DelVecchio suggests that the planning process has been delayed somewhat by the fact that DCAM did not have a full-fledged commissioner for nearly a year, until Perini took over in early May.
Perini was named to replace Lark Jurev Palermo, who left the agency a year ago to join Boston’s Peabody & Arnold.
“DCAM’s been on top of this, but we’re probably not a little more ahead because there wasn’t a commissioner,” observes DelVecchio. She predicts “things will now move along more quickly.”
Where To Go?
Two possible sites for housing the Suffolk Superior Court and the BMC are currently under consideration, says Perini.
The current focal point is an extensive renovation of the high-rise courthouse at Pemberton Square.
DCAM is conducting a feasibility study of whether the 63-year-old structure can accommodate high-volume business generated by the two busy courts. It’s questionable whether the building would have sufficient square footage to house both courts.
“It’s an odd building,” Hines remarks. “The floor plate is quite small. There are certainly some space limits.”
Another major impediment is developing sufficient space for separate circulation areas for judges, prisoners and the general public a must-have feature in modern courthouses, Hines notes.
Trial Court officials want to raze the 1930s edifice and start from scratch
.Dortch-Okara flatly says she “prefer[s] the site, but not the building.”
She and DelVecchio favor this option primarily because the site is near numerous mass transit stops as well as many downtown law firms, and the high-rise which has suffered from “sick building syndrome” after a disastrous waterproofing project in 1993 is viewed as outmoded and beyond repair.
“That could be a legitimate argument,” Perini allows, “but from what I’ve seen we’re not prepared to come to that conclusion.”
It could be tough trying to shoehorn a modern courthouse requiring lots of space for two busy courts into the narrow footprint of the high-rise, Perini points out.
Also, neighbors of the high-rise, including the Supreme Judicial Court and Appeals Court, both which are slotted to occupy the immediately adjacent historic courthouse once it is refurbished, may frown on an implosion and major construction site in such tight quarters.
Perini indicates that the “disruption” of such a project is a primary consideration.
Despite the potential impediments, however, destroying the building to make room for a brand new facility remains under discussion, Perini says.
William J. Tierney, chief justice of the BMC, favors Pemberton Square because “it’s a prime spot. You can’t beat the location.”
Tierney who managed to persuade lawmakers last year to add a rider to the budget requiring his court to vacate the high-rise and occupy the historic courthouse until permanent quarters were found says his court “certainly wants to be heard from, but we haven’t been part of any discussions to date on choosing a site.”
He says the BMC is currently concentrating on the move to the old federal courthouse.
The other possible location under consideration is the site of the old Registry of Motor Vehicles on Nashua Street.
Some favor building a new facility at that location because it is adjacent to the jail on Nashua Street. Both courts maintain busy criminal dockets.
But others disfavor the site because it is not readily accessible to mass transit and the financial district where many law firms are located.
“It is remote,” says Dortch-Okara. “It’s not my first choice.”
Douglas K. Sheff, incoming president of the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys, criticizes the location as “inconvenient to most practitioners. It’s far afield from most attorneys in Boston. There’s no parking and you have traffic jams [in the immediately adjacent area].”
One possibility not yet on the table is locating a facility in the area of the central artery once the Big Dig is complete, according to Boston Bar Association President Thomas E. Dwyer Jr.
“That’s one of the most exciting strips of property in the world,” Dwyer says. “Just imagine a mixed public-private building there with the first couple of floors open to the public.”
Is The Money There?
When it comes time to commit money to the project, officials may find that the well has run dry. There’s a fair chance that most of the $730 million from 1998’s courthouse funding bill may be gone.
Under the bill, $285 million is “earmarked” for four high-priority projects: renovating or replacing the high-rise; renovating the adjacent historic courthouse; constructing a new courthouse in downtown Worcester; and constructing a new courthouse in downtown Fall River.
However, $100 million or so is the likely price tag for the Worcester facility, which recently got a boost when DCAM selected a site after months of bitter infighting among local officials over the location.
And another $100 million or so is targeted for refurbishing the historic courthouse for the SJC, Appeals Court and Social Law Library.
That leaves about $85 million left over for the remaining two projects.
“Just looking at the one line item [in the bond bill],” Hines remarks, “the answer is clearly no; there’s not enough funding to do all of the projects named.”
He says enough money is budgeted to complete the design work for the high-rise, and “then it would be a matter of looking at the other line items in the bill and all the other project priorities to see what’s moving forward and what the priorities are for expending those funds.”
If it turned out there were enough priorities, Hines says, officials may have to go back to the Legislature to request more money.
The possible shortfall is prompting the BBA, according to Dwyer, to reconvene its ad hoc bond bill committee, which was instrumental in securing the courthouse funding bill.
Joan A. Lukey, who will replace Dwyer as BBA president in September, says the organized bar must focus on the funding issue immediately.
“My concern is to not allow this to slip and we find ourselves up against the wall,” Lukey says. “There is time as long as we don’t let it slide. A new bond issue may be needed and we need to get focused on that.”
Martin W. Healy, general counsel and acting executive director of the Massachusetts Bar Association, agrees that work on securing more money for court projects must commence in the near future.
“The bar can’t become complacent,” Healy cautions. “While the 1998 bond bill was great legislation, no one looked at it as the end point. Double, if not triple, the [$730 million] is needed to bring courts throughout the state into the 21st century.”
As for the Suffolk Superior Court/BMC project, Healy suggests that because “earmarking in the bond bill can change,” the permanent home of the two courts could be funded under the bill without the need for additional money authorized by lawmakers.
Nonetheless, Healy says “the organized bar must work hand-in-hand with the SJC and Trial Court in requesting additional money from the Legislature. Planning should begin shortly on this.”
Bricks And Mortar
Assuming the funds are eventually secured, the new home or homes of the Suffolk Superior Court and BMC will incorporate the design and function features of recently built courthouses such as the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse in Boston and Fenton Judicial Center in Lawrence, according to Perini.
Modern courthouses are characterized by completely separate circulation areas for jurists, criminal defendants and the general public; elevators for transporting prisoners from holding cells directly to courtrooms; and clerk’s offices on lower floors.
Conference rooms for private meetings are considered essential, as are spacious, acoustically sound courtrooms technologically capable of handling sophisticated presentations of demonstrative evidence.
A Superior Court judge who requests anonymity insists that he and his colleagues must have a significant role in the design of courtrooms.
“There must be a persistent, focused, informed effort to include judges in the design process. We must be involved to develop a consensus on the necessary tools for a modern courtroom,” he emphasizes.
One example of planning gone awry, he says, was in a preliminary design for the proposed Worcester courthouse that placed a centralized judicial chamber far removed from courtrooms. Judicial lobbies for the sake of efficiency should be immediately adjacent to courtrooms, the judge indicates.
DelVecchio agrees.“The design du jour is to have a ‘robing room’ next to the courtroom and a central chamber,” she remarks. “Too much time is wasted that way. Judges’ lobbies should be next to the courtrooms.”
Sheff wants to ensure that trial lawyers have a say as well.
“The real needs of the trial bar must be considered as opposed to just building a courthouse without concern for the needs of lawyers, jurors and litigants,” remarks Sheff.
