Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center
. . . if there is a specific, identifiable impact that is more significant than would be expected of a similar project located somewhere else, why not either a) question the reasonableness of a project in this location, b) mitigate the impact?
Agreed.
_ Occupants of buildings directly over the railway/roadway transportation corridor do suffer health impacts that occupants elsewhere do not suffer.
_ For this reason, I have long argued that the public health risks should be quantified, and that either the harm should be mitigated or else the proposed buildings should be relocated.
_ Last November, the Massachusetts Secretary of Environment ordered the owners of the proposed Fenway Center air rights to quantify the risks and mitigate the harm at that site.
_ At the Prudential site, less progress has been made in this regard, because the Secretary urged ? but didn?t require ? the owners to work with the public and resolve the health risks.
. . . would these units and shops look better in Hopkinton, where they would remove land better suited for other uses?
No one has determined whether the Prudential Center complex is best located in Boston, Hopkinton, or elsewhere, because doing that requires consideration of every factor, including the public health risks.
_ But so far, the city refuses to recognize such risks anywhere, and the state urges ? but does not require ? mitigation of the risks at Prudential.
. . . Do you think, in a city with an acute land shortage, that the amount of development afforded by turn pike air rights could simply go to another urban location where it would have fewer environmental impacts, but the same environmental benefits?
No, it couldn?t.
_ The 44 acres theoretically available at air rights sites could not simply go to other urban locations, because there aren?t that many undeveloped acres left in Boston.
_ But the mere fact that there?s no more vacant land left doesn?t justify building at the toxic sites without mitigation.
. . . And do you/would you aid the city in locating a suitable area for that development in the planning process as a constructive compliment to demonstrating the harm of it over the turnpike?
First of all, ?over the turnpike? is an inadequate description of these sites, because the interstate railway/roadway transportation corridor contains up to 7 rail lanes in addition to the 10 turnpike lanes.
Secondly, aiding the city in locating alternate sites is unnecessary.
_ No such aid is needed, because the city and its developers already maintain an inventory of all available sites.
_ The city and its developers know that there are public health risks over the corridor, but they will continue building there until external forces cause them to either relocate, or else build with mitigation.
