Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
I don't think these things are at all the same -- certainly I would never argue that. Historic buildings should be preserved -- as I've already said (and will say over and over, since I think it's one of the three most important no-cost things any city could do to improve its quality of life), I'd like to see a blanket landmark of all pre-WWII properties.
But here there's no historic, or otherwise notable, property at all. What's at stake is, for all intents and purposes, an empty lot. I don't see any reason how the BRA can dictate on such a micro level what can go on an empty lot. Outside of something like the WTC or places where a developer needs special height, historic preservation or other permissions, it's fairly unprecedented for a city body to take such direct control (if that is what's happening -- I'm still unclear on how binding these renders from the BRA actually are) of a landowner's private property.
In this case, though, there is no Shreve's, no Dainty Dot. Indeed, building taller buildings on these sorts of "empty" lots takes pressure off of Boston's historic building stock -- the more office/residential space you can build on these currently worthless plots (here, on the Mass Pike, where various parking lots/garages are across the city), the more supply you have and the less need to raid the city's architectural heritage.
Rather than compare it to Shreve's, I'd say it's a question of whether the city can micromanage people's as-of-right developments (and, Boss Menino machinations aside, I doubt that this would hold much legal weight in any transparent system) and de facto turn every development into another fine piece of BRA craftsmanship, like Government Center, the West End, etc.
