Table Of Content

BOSTON PUBLIC ^7 ^i?r •^^•- STUDY FOR THE RENOVATION EXPANSION OF / THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMPLEX & DivisionofCapital Planning Operations Courts Facilities Unit CSB883-STU / PHASE III & Development Analysis ofAlternatives June, 1992 Vitetta Group ArchitechireOEngineeringOPlanningOInteriorDesign G & Phase IIIDevelopment Analysis ofAlternatives TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements page Executive Sunimary E.1 - E.24 Introduction 1-3 Methodology 4-15 Alternative A - New AppellateCourthouse 16 - 35 Overview 16 - 20 Diagrammatic Plans 21-25 Programmatic Suitability 26-27 Scope ofConstruction/Renovations 28 - 29 Summary of Estimated Costs 29 - 30 Phasing Plan 31 - 35 Alternative B - AppellateCourts in the Renovated Old Covirthouse 36- 55 Overview 36 -41 Diagrammatic Plans 42-46 Programmatic Suitability 47- 48 Scope ofConstruction/Renovations 49 - 50 Summary ofEstimated Costs 50 - 51 Phasing Plan 52 - 55 MassachusettsStaUProjectNOS.CSB88-3STU StudyfortheRenovation/ExpansionoftheSuffolkCountyCourthouseComplex Boston,Massachusetts & Phase IIIDevelopment Analysis ofAlternatives This Reportdescribes twoalternativesforhowtomeettheprogramrequirementforthecourtsand functions located in theovercrowdedSuffolkCountyCourthouse. Thealternativesarebasedupontheconclusionthat renovationandcontinued useoftheexistingOld andNewCourtbuildingsand theconstructionof additional spaceina thirdbuildingisbothcosteffectiveand willmeettheneedsofthecourt. Thefeatures, cost,implementationscheduleand uniqueadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachalternativearedescribed asabasis fordeterminingwhichalternativecanbestmeettheoverallneedsofthecourtsindowntown Boston. At thetimeofpubhcation,thetwoalternativeshavebeenreviewed withtheJusticesoftheSupremeJudicial Courtand theAppealsCourt, theChiefAdministrativeJusticeoftheTrialCourtand theAdministrative JusticesofeachTrialCourtDepartmentand theBoardofTrusteesoftheSocial LawLibrary. Manyofthe ir\sightfulquestionsandsuggestionsoffered bytheseindividualswereincorporatedinto thefinal alternatives. Manyindividualshavecontributed tothecreativesolutions thathavebeenpresentedhere. Themembersof thePohcy ReviewGroup,chairedbySupremeCourtJusticeNeil L.Lynch,havemetalmosteverymonth sinceJuly, 1991 to shapethegeneraldirectionofthealternatives,discussand reviewtechnicalinformation and toconsiderthetwofinalaltenutives thatarepresentedindetailinthisreport. DCPOand theVitettaGroupwishtoacknowledgethefollowingindividualsfortheirparticipationin developingtwoalternativesolutions tomeetingthecourtneedsindowntownBoston. Covirts SupremeJudicialCourt PaulJ. Liacos ChiefJustice Neil L. Lynch AssociateJustice,ChairmanofthePolicyReviewGroup MariaMossaides ExecutiveAssistantto theChiefJustice Appeals Court Rudolph Kass AssociateJustice,MemberofthePolicyReviewGroup SocialLawLibrary Edgar Bellefontaine Librarian,MemberofthePolicyReviewGroup J. TrialCourt John E. Fenton ChiefAdministrativeJustice Michael Edgerton LegalCounsel, MemberofthePolicyReviewGroup Stephen Carroll DeputyAdministratorofCourts,MemberofthePolicyReviewCourt J. MargaretCavanaugh AdministrativeAttorney ThePlanningTeamfortheAlternativesPhaseoftheMasterPlanconsistedofthefollowingindividuals: DivisionoftheCapital PlanningandOperations,CourtFacilities Unit KevinM.Smith,Commissioner JohnStainton, Director KellyQuinn, DeputyDirectorandProjectDirector MassachusettsStaUProjectNOS.CSB88-3STU StudyfortheRenovation/ExpansionoftheSuffolkCountyCourthouseComplex Boston,Massachusetts