Recent content by Neimanmarcuswatch

  1. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower The Simon Property Group's latest construction proposal would apparently still violate the Land Use Restrictions of the HUD-funded Copley Place Project that are mandated in its Master Deed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--by reducing the...
  2. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower From where do you get the "25%" affordable residential units figure for the Copley Place Reconstruction Project? If only 71 of the 542 residential units being constructed are "affordable," then wouldn't less than 14% of the newly-constructed...
  3. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower At the BRA hearing that undemocratically approved this project, over 90 percent of the South End and Back Bay residents who spoke opposed this project. About 99 percent of the residents of Tent City are either working market rate tenants, working...
  4. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Wall Street-backed"?! The horror! They actually are open to investment garnered through public markets! Any Joe Schmo can simply invest his money in Simon or Nieman Marcus whenever he wants! Disgusting! Ned Part II, if you're such a crusader for...
  5. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower If you check out the "Who Rules Boston?" pamphlet from the 1980s (that some local 1980s activists wrote), you'll notice that years before the occupy wall street/occupy harvard folks again pointed out how the Wall Street-linked 1 percent have been...
  6. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Do you also wonder why nobody who is educated would takes the activist's complaints seriously? Because these letters of complaint that you guys lodge contains no facts, only assumptions. The traffic and pedestrian conflicts will increase based on what...
  7. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower At the recent newly-formed "Copley Neighbors" group meetings of residents of Back Bay and adjacent neighborhoods and representatives of Back Bay groups and adjacent neighborhood groups, 100 percent of the people attending voted in oppositiion to this...
  8. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Opposition to the Wall Street-backed Simon Property Group [SPG]'s plan to build a 47-story skyscraper for the private corporate benefit of the Wall Street-owned Neiman Marcus store in Copley Place seems to be growing among 99 percent of the people who...
  9. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Reconstructing a retail department store building into a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on behalf of special private corporate interests--like other examples of overdevelopment and Manhattanization in neighborhoods like the Back Bay and South...
  10. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Regarding who owns the land, it's owned by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation/MTA, a public agency, which apparently leases it to Simon Properties, the owner of Copley Place mall. Since about 20 percent of all architects in the USA and a...
  11. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Actually, most people who live, work and drive near Simon Property's proposed "Neiman Marcus Tower" construction project don't want this "Big Dig"-type project to be built. From an aesthetic point of view, turning the corner of Stuart & Dartmouth...
  12. N

    Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

    Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower Another problem with Simon Property constructing a 47-story luxury residential skyscraper on public land that is only zoned for commercial use, is that it would violate the terms of the $18.8 million Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] of federal...

Back
Top