- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,964
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
No, this guy deserves it, if only for being a huge dick.
No, this guy deserves it, if only for being a huge dick.
Avalon Exeter | 77 Exeter Street | Back Bay
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
Filters are a fine idea (an ultrafine one? ;-) .... except, does this technology actually exist?
Filters are a fine idea (an ultrafine one? ;-) .... except, does this technology actually exist?
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
I'm sure it does. But, at what cost. We put HEPA filters on the exhaust stacks and vents exiting bio-safety labs which are handling dangerous pathogens. I'm sure this could be utilized on the pike vents as well.
A better approach might be to develop vents which raise and disperse fumes in a similar pattern to how they do on the pike when it's exposed. Then no one could complain about creating a problem, but at least maintaining the status quo.
First, it still sounds like research needs to be done to find out exactly what is coming out, and at what concentrations, instead of relying on "strong" evidence that says bad things happen to people in these zones.
As it says in the article, there are pretty low exhaust fans above the retail at the Pru. Get some independent testing done to figure out what exactly is coming out that is so bad and how to fix it.
People say that there was no requirement in 1964 or whatever, because "we just didn't know" (paraphrase). But, the argument could be made that car exhaust regulations and fuels themselves have improved so much since 1964 that this area has only gotten healthier over the years and maybe there is no immediate danger.
Or OK since I'm just kind of riffing early in the morning here. Since the danger is to the residents. Have the developer be responsible for the residents. Install HEPA filtration on the intake side of the air handling units and filter the incoming air. Lot cheaper than trying to solve the problems of the Pike.
That's the end of my open mic time for now.
I'm sure it does. But, at what cost. We put HEPA filters on the exhaust stacks and vents exiting bio-safety labs which are handling dangerous pathogens. I'm sure this could be utilized on the pike vents as well.
A better approach might be to develop vents which raise and disperse fumes in a similar pattern to how they do on the pike when it's exposed. Then no one could complain about creating a problem, but at least maintaining the status quo.
First, it still sounds like research needs to be done to find out exactly what is coming out, and at what concentrations, instead of relying on "strong" evidence that says bad things happen to people in these zones.
As it says in the article, there are pretty low exhaust fans above the retail at the Pru. Get some independent testing done to figure out what exactly is coming out that is so bad and how to fix it.
People say that there was no requirement in 1964 or whatever, because "we just didn't know" (paraphrase). But, the argument could be made that car exhaust regulations and fuels themselves have improved so much since 1964 that this area has only gotten healthier over the years and maybe there is no immediate danger.
Or OK since I'm just kind of riffing early in the morning here. Since the danger is to the residents. Have the developer be responsible for the residents. Install HEPA filtration on the intake side of the air handling units and filter the incoming air. Lot cheaper than trying to solve the problems of the Pike.
That's the end of my open mic time for now.
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
I argue the air is better than pre-Prudential Center. The railyards are gone, remember? Talk about pollution!
I argue the air is better than pre-Prudential Center. The railyards are gone, remember? Talk about pollution!
Lurker
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,362
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
Because of the EPA, state regulations, lawsuits, and companies generally realizing pollution is a bad idea anyway, our air and water has on average been getting cleaner every year since 1974.
Because of the EPA, state regulations, lawsuits, and companies generally realizing pollution is a bad idea anyway, our air and water has on average been getting cleaner every year since 1974.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Lurker
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,362
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
TiO2 has been known as an environmentally friendly catalyst, well at least in conjunction with oxygen and direct sunlight, for years. It breaks down several types airborne pollution into harmless elements similar to what copper, and alloys derived from copper, do to biological pathogens.
I'm honestly surprised all concrete highway embankments and sound screening walls are coated with the stuff per the USDOT. Maybe it's a cost and glare issue.
TiO2 has been known as an environmentally friendly catalyst, well at least in conjunction with oxygen and direct sunlight, for years. It breaks down several types airborne pollution into harmless elements similar to what copper, and alloys derived from copper, do to biological pathogens.
I'm honestly surprised all concrete highway embankments and sound screening walls are coated with the stuff per the USDOT. Maybe it's a cost and glare issue.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
OK then, what's not to like here? Get a new building added to the Pru in exchange for adding some filtration technology to the Pike tunnel. Win for everyone.
OK then, what's not to like here? Get a new building added to the Pru in exchange for adding some filtration technology to the Pike tunnel. Win for everyone.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
You don't get it Ron. The NIMBYs and especially Ned do not want anything tall built there. The pollution problem is just an excuse they are using to stop the project. Ned is not reasonable, just selfish.
You don't get it Ron. The NIMBYs and especially Ned do not want anything tall built there. The pollution problem is just an excuse they are using to stop the project. Ned is not reasonable, just selfish.
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
State Oks Prudential tower plans
By Thomas Grillo
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Boston Properties will not face any further environmental reviews for its controversial project at the Prudential Center.
Letters from neighbors insist on having an updated environmental impact study for the proposed office tower at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story apartment building on Exeter Street. But the secretary of Environmental Affairs said the agency lacks authority.
?No further Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review is required,? wrote Ian Bowles.
Boston Properties argued successfully that state approvals were granted for the site in the 1980s, so additional reviews were unnecessary. Some neighbors said that the project has changed dramatically and argued for an updated review.
?We?re disappointed,? said Maura Burke, an abutter. ?But the secretary did urge the developers to work with us to avoid and reduce maximum environmental impacts.?
Link
State Oks Prudential tower plans
By Thomas Grillo
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Boston Properties will not face any further environmental reviews for its controversial project at the Prudential Center.
Letters from neighbors insist on having an updated environmental impact study for the proposed office tower at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story apartment building on Exeter Street. But the secretary of Environmental Affairs said the agency lacks authority.
?No further Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review is required,? wrote Ian Bowles.
Boston Properties argued successfully that state approvals were granted for the site in the 1980s, so additional reviews were unnecessary. Some neighbors said that the project has changed dramatically and argued for an updated review.
?We?re disappointed,? said Maura Burke, an abutter. ?But the secretary did urge the developers to work with us to avoid and reduce maximum environmental impacts.?
Link
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
I was about to say....
On one hand Im glad this was approved.
On the other, its this same attitude (the project was oked 30 years ago) that is giving us the terrible Mass Ave remake.
I was about to say....
On one hand Im glad this was approved.
On the other, its this same attitude (the project was oked 30 years ago) that is giving us the terrible Mass Ave remake.
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
Remember, the environmental impact the neighborhood wanted them to mitigate was traffic on the Masspike and other ridiculousness not at all related to these buildings. The towers themselves will conform to current standards.
The absolutely correct judgement, in my opinion.
Remember, the environmental impact the neighborhood wanted them to mitigate was traffic on the Masspike and other ridiculousness not at all related to these buildings. The towers themselves will conform to current standards.
The absolutely correct judgement, in my opinion.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
No._ Re-read the Columbus Center proposals, in which the owners say that they are fully aware of all costs, and fully capable of covering all costs with private funding._ Of course, once they got an approval, those very same owners sought 19 public subsidies worth $605 million to pay costs and profits alike, and argued to Turnpike officials that these 7 acres are worthless and should be given to them for nothing._ It isn?t the state trying to get something for nothing, it?s the developers.
Untrue._ Regardless of when an existing complex was first built, adding towers to it at any time adds traffic (the towers? occupants)._ The developers already admitted to this.
No, you don?t make the connection, but it?s there nonetheless.
Regardless of the ages of you, the road, and the building, the proposed new towers will expose their occupants to a known public health risk._ Bbfen and Vanshnookenraggen argue that developers aren?t responsible for public health risks to the occupants of their buildings if the public health risks already exist, and the buildings are added later over the site of those risks._ But just as responsible developers don?t build luxury homes over toxic waste dumps without addressing the waste, responsible developers don?t build luxury offices and homes in toxic air without addressing that.
If these developers refuse to work with the public as the Secretary of Environment urged them to do, and use a loophole in the law to build new structures in an existing toxic air zone, then they are irresponsible._ And these towers will serve as a perfect example that justifies corrective legislation.
After the towers are finished 5-10 years from today, the owners may discover an increased awareness about the public health risks, and a decreased marketability of towers that expose people to such risks.
No._ Re-read the Columbus Center proposals, in which the owners say that they are fully aware of all costs, and fully capable of covering all costs with private funding._ Of course, once they got an approval, those very same owners sought 19 public subsidies worth $605 million to pay costs and profits alike, and argued to Turnpike officials that these 7 acres are worthless and should be given to them for nothing._ It isn?t the state trying to get something for nothing, it?s the developers.
Untrue._ Regardless of when an existing complex was first built, adding towers to it at any time adds traffic (the towers? occupants)._ The developers already admitted to this.
No, you don?t make the connection, but it?s there nonetheless.
Regardless of the ages of you, the road, and the building, the proposed new towers will expose their occupants to a known public health risk._ Bbfen and Vanshnookenraggen argue that developers aren?t responsible for public health risks to the occupants of their buildings if the public health risks already exist, and the buildings are added later over the site of those risks._ But just as responsible developers don?t build luxury homes over toxic waste dumps without addressing the waste, responsible developers don?t build luxury offices and homes in toxic air without addressing that.
If these developers refuse to work with the public as the Secretary of Environment urged them to do, and use a loophole in the law to build new structures in an existing toxic air zone, then they are irresponsible._ And these towers will serve as a perfect example that justifies corrective legislation.
After the towers are finished 5-10 years from today, the owners may discover an increased awareness about the public health risks, and a decreased marketability of towers that expose people to such risks.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
Thanks Ned.
Though I don't necessarily agree with you often, I've grown to appreciate your presence on this board more and more.
I apologize for any (and all) earlier trouble I've given you.
Thanks Ned.
Though I don't necessarily agree with you often, I've grown to appreciate your presence on this board more and more.
I apologize for any (and all) earlier trouble I've given you.