Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Justin7]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, you are intentionally and unnecessarily complicating matters in an attempt to regain credibility. Your arbitrary ten steps have absolutely no basis in reality.

If the records are accessible online then they can easily be searched and referenced. We are not talking about a single 16,000 page document. There is no difficultly in breaking the records up and linking to them. There is also no difficulty in referencing a particular document and linking to it. Welcome to the internet.

What this comes down to is that you either do not want others to see the documents or you do not actually have them.

I'll write now for a third time: You have lost all credibility.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

I'm interested in this now. Ned, can you at least give me hints or advice on how to obtain 16,000 pages of public record? Where can I get the sources? Are they from newspapers, library, the government, etc?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Then posting here in general is pointless . . . you aren't here to do anything but make unsubstantiated statements and diatribes, without providing the material to back it up . . .

ArchBoston.org rules don?t require anyone to back up anything ? with any material ? ever._ That?s obvious in most postings, where members don?t cite any usable sources._ Even though it?s not required, I cite every source, so anyone who has any doubt can easily do further research.

You are a hypocrite to promote a double standard whereby I must post all related public records behind every citation I give, but no other member ever has to cite sources at all.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Your arbitrary ten steps have absolutely no basis in reality. If the records are accessible online then they can easily be searched and referenced . . . There is no difficultly in breaking the records up and linking to them . . . referencing a particular document and linking to it.

No, the ten steps aren?t arbitrary, and yes, they do have a basis in reality._ Most professionals know that just posting an image never guarantees search-ability, cross-referencing, etc., but ask a government records specialist since you?re still unclear on the basic concepts.

No system of the scale and scope that you imagine was ever created using the crude approach that you propose, because just posting a page does not automatically makes it search-able, referenced, split, linked, cross-referenced, usable, or any of the other features you assume._ If you still believe your idea is possible, then just prove it, in a demonstration test, with the first 1,000 pages._ Scan ?em, post ?em, observe whether they perform all those other chores automatically, and then let forum members take your project for a test drive.

. . . you either do not want others to see the documents . . .

Untrue._ If I didn?t want anyone to see those documents, I would not have disclosed the titles, authors, dates, and organizations._ I have been posting detailed citations for over 2 years precisely because I do hope others will go get the same documents, directly from the authors and government records custodians, and see for themselves.

I do want people to see the documents, and I do provide them to elected officials, agency heads, journalists, community leaders, and others._ My decision not to waste my time on your unworkable proposal does not mean I won?t continue sharing public records with others; it only means I won?t waste my time on your proposal.

On the other hand, your failure to carry out your proposal ? which doesn?t depend on me at all ? betrays your lack of faith in its merits, your lack of ability to execute it, or your discovery that it simply does not work.

. . . or you do not actually have them. . .

Untrue again._ My unwillingness to waste my resources on your unworkable proposal does not mean that I did not obtain 14 years worth of public records; it only means that I am unwilling to waste resources on an unworkable proposal.

No part of your proposal depends on me, so if it?s any good at all, then just prove that it can do what you imagine by executing it.

 

[Justin7]

Re: Columbus Center

No, the ten steps aren?t arbitrary, and yes, they do have a basis in reality._ Most professionals know that just posting an image never guarantees search-ability, cross-referencing, etc., but ask a government records specialist since you?re still unclear on the basic concepts.

I'm going to stop you right there because I wasn't aware I was having this discussion with my grandmother.

Who said anything about posting images? Believe it or not, there is a variety of readily available software that will take a scanned text based image (or, say, 16,000) and convert it to actual honest-to-goodness searchable text at the push of a button.

All right, now go back to lecturing me on absurd ten step programs, government records specialists, and what is or is not possible in Ned's world.

Also, I've made no proposal. I haven't followed this project other of looking at renders, feeling it would be an obvious improvement over what is there, and learning that at this point in time, for various reasons, it is unlikely to happen. I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. I have little interest in reading these documents. Certainly not enough to take the time to scan them. Your dishonestly and hypocrisy, however, calls for rebuke.

There are no rules on this forum stating that you need to provide documentation for your claims, but if you want to be taken seriously that is what is now required. Until that time I will make a claim of my own. Ned Flaherty is completely without credibility concerning matters discussed in this thread. I have 1600 pages of documents that prove it. You'll just have to take my word for that.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . can you at least give me hints or advice on how to obtain 16,000 pages of public record?

I don?t have time to teach a whole course about it, but here?s a summary of what I did since 1992.

1. Learn both public records laws.
2. Learn the city and state public processes for project reviews.
3. Get every related news article since 1992.
4. Get copies of records from libraries (might reduce cost a little bit).
5. Request copies of records from agencies (MTA, BRA, EOE&EA, etcetera).

Typical experiences (every agency has different rules)
? State cost:_ up to $0.20/page, plus up to $90/hour labor to find, review, edit, and re-file.
? Federal cost:_ up to $0.15/page, plus up to $45/hour for finding each document.
? Total turnaround time:_ 20 days - 20 months per document (without appeals).
? Appeal time:_ add several months.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

In an ideal world, the various local, state and federal government agencies would have hired a company like Google to to digitize and post all public documents online so a quick search with words "Columbus Center" would retrieve all relevant documents.

It's nice to dream....

Edit:

Out of curiosity, I did a Google search for "Google Government Documents" and found this site

Uncle Sam

A search for "Columbus Center" was, of course, useless due to the generic name, but a search for "Columbus Center Boston, MA" was a bit more revealing.

Perhaps some fine tuning would get even better results?

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

Is there any way we could settle this with a dance-off?

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

I don’t have time...

Yes you do. You have plenty of time to write your personal attacks on this forum, so you definitely have enough time to back up your statements with proof (e.g. you don't have to upload all 16,000 pages, just the ones that back up your statements).

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Is there any way we could settle this with a dance-off?

It's really the only way...

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

"She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing." ? Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)

.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Who said anything about posting images?

Barbaric Manchurian, one of your partners in the ?just-scan-and-load? scheme, proposed images._ He wrote in post #1992, ?you can take photos of them and upload them onto PhotoBucket, which is the fastest method but doesn?t allow text searching.?_ He wrote that probably because of the core document among the 16,000 pages:_ the 3,400-page Air Rights Lease, which Turnpike attorneys intentionally released only in a fuzzy, non-text-searchable, image-based format.

. . . there is a variety of readily available software that will take a scanned text based image . . . and convert it to actual honest-to-goodness searchable text at the push of a button.

Such software?s been around for decades, and although gradually improving, has never been perfected enough to automatically compensate for the images produced by poor quality government copiers._ Therefore, for the ?just-scan-and-load? approach that you propose, step 8 (proofreading and fixing) is still a necessity.

. . . There are no rules on this forum stating that you need to provide documentation for your claims, but if you want to be taken seriously that is what is now required.

I often post new information that I find in my research, and I cite every source, so everything is already documented.

Some forum members have complained that this thread has too little cheerleading, and too much discussion of detailed data, so you?ll need the permission of the ArchBoston.org owners before trying to decree that every statement needs not only the usable citations that I always provide, but also additional documents, some of which total thousands of pages._ ArchBoston.org hasn?t provided any software for this, or reserved the storage space for it, and third party providers are either too costly (the functional ones), or else too limited and subject to change (the free ones).

. . . I have little interest in reading these documents.

It is hypocritical for you to demand thousands of pages of evidence which you also admit that you have little interest in reading.

. . . I have 1600 pages of documents that prove it. You'll just have to take my word for that.

No one takes your word ? or anyone else?s word, thankfully ? when an author can?t cite titles, dates, authors, and organizations of the sources used._ I always cite sources, so there?s no problem.

The documentation gap arises from 3 problems:

■ Forum members are unwilling to go get the sources that are cited here.
■ The forum lacks the resources to post all source documents from every member.
■ No one is willing to donate the resources needed to put the 16,000-page Columbus Center history on-line in a usable fashion.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

Barbaric Manchurian, one of your partners in the “just-scan-and-load” scheme, proposed images._ He wrote in post #1992, “you can take photos of them and upload them onto PhotoBucket, which is the fastest method but doesn’t allow text searching.”_ He wrote that probably because of the core document among the 16,000 pages:_ the 3,400-page Air Rights Lease, which Turnpike attorneys intentionally released only in a fuzzy, non-text-searchable, image-based format.

No one by the screen name of "Barbaric Manchurian" said that (in fact, there is no forum user with that exact screen name). In fact, I did not capitalize "Bucket" in post #1992, and my screen name is not "Barbaric Manchurian", so therefore you have used incorrect quoting and context and have made your point invalid. Even the tiniest flaws in grammar can mean huge things to a lawyer, engineer, or other professional, so why do you have to blatantly lie when you falsely claim "Barbaric Manchurian" wrote that?

Such software’s been around for decades, and although gradually improving, has never been perfected enough to automatically compensate for the images produced by poor quality government copiers._ Therefore, for the “just-scan-and-load” approach that you propose, step 8 (proofreading and fixing) is still a necessity.

Look at Google Book Search. It's totally searchable using text-recognition used on copies made by "poor quality government copiers" (i.e. library copiers). Therefore, this point is also invalid.

Some forum members have complained that this thread has too little cheerleading, and too much discussion of detailed data, so you’ll need the permission of the ArchBoston.org owners before trying to decree that every statement needs not only the usable citations that I always provide, but also additional documents, some of which total thousands of pages._ ArchBoston.org hasn’t provided any software for this, or reserved the storage space for it, and third party providers are either too costly (the functional ones), or else too limited and subject to change (the free ones).

Third party providers are free and functional, so stop lying again, for the 3rd time in just one post.

Sorry, but I'm allergic to bullshit.

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

Not to turn us away from this scintillating discussion, Ned, but you list your occupation as "urban planning activist." May I ask the name of your favorite writer or theorist in the discipline?

 

[bbfen]

Re: Columbus Center

Not to turn us away from this scintillating discussion, Ned, but you list your occupation as "urban planning activist." May I ask the name of your favorite writer or theorist in the discipline?

Beton Brut, for the win.

And after that giggle, I would now like to nominate this thread for a lock!

 

[palindrome]

Re: Columbus Center

This thread makes my eyes bleed.

 

[PlanBoston]

Re: Columbus Center

Beton Brut, for the win.

And after that giggle, I would now like to nominate this thread for a lock!

Agreed. For those of us who are genuinely interested in what is happening at this site, this thread has become completely useless. It's the ArchBoston equivalent of Jerry Springer.

 

[type001]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned has officially lost on many counts. Now lock it down.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Ned, . . . you list your occupation as "urban planning activist." May I ask the name of your favorite writer or theorist in the discipline?

No, I don?t list my occupation as urban planning activist._ I am an urban planning activist, but it is not my occupation._ As you know, I focus on public policy and public process more than architecture._ (All this was covered previously.)

Since you asked, I do not have a favorite writer ?in the discipline? as you wrote._ Globally, urban theorist Jane Jacobs seems ideal for my purposes._ Nationally, Greg Leroy is profoundly important, and deserves more recognition._ Locally, landscape architect and urban designer Shirley Kressel is a treasure, and an inspiration._ There is some excellent writing at City Journal (nationally) and CommonWealth Magazine (Massachusetts).

There are about four members who want to continue discussing the on-line public records project proposed by Kent Xie, Barbaric Manchurian and Seamus McFly, and there are about four members who don?t._ Having nothing further to say on the subject, I join with those who don?t._ No discussion is needed until after the volunteers have a prototype ready for other forum members to test.

People who are tired of Columbus Center ? but interested in air rights ? would do well to focus on the 4 proposals filed on 5 December 2008, which have not received the attention they deserve.

But locking this whole thread is unwise, because there are about 5 news stories in the mill regarding site restoration, tunnels, and The Related Companies.

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

Thanks for your detailed reply, Ned.

No, I don?t list my occupation as urban planning activist._ I am an urban planning activist, but it is not my occupation._ As you know, I focus on public policy and public process more than architecture._

I should have been more clear in my question. In your archBOSTON member profile, you identify yourself as an urban planning activist. I wasn't looking to scrutinize your CV, just to better understand the sources of your knowledge and opinion.

I do consider it unfortunate in the extreme that a person as invested in our built environment as you are isn't interested in aesthetics. Truly, a person with your intelligence and drive could do a lot of good. You're like a cook who hates to eat. It makes me sad.

Since you asked, I do not have a favorite writer ?in the discipline? as you wrote._ Globally, urban theorist Jane Jacobs seems ideal for my purposes._ Nationally, Greg Leroy is profoundly important, and deserves more recognition._ Locally, landscape architect and urban designer Shirley Kressel is a treasure, and an inspiration._ There is some excellent writing at City Journal (nationally) and CommonWealth Magazine (Massachusetts).

Your reading list is a good one. I've recently finished Jane Jacobs' Dark Age Ahead. Her thoughts and ideas are compelling, even if the presentation isn't as engaging as some of her other work.

I must admit, I haven't read much of LeRoy's work. I did see an excerpt from his Great American Jobs Scam; he seems like a less cuddly Michael Moore.

I'm a bit surprised that you didn't mention our own Jane Holtz Kay.

...locking this whole thread is unwise, because there are about 5 news stories in the mill regarding site restoration, tunnels, and The Related Companies.

I have no interest in seeing any productive discussion ended in this or any thread on archBOSTON.