Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[czsz]

To answer but one charge: how can one logically be for covering the Pike and against the "pollution" of vent stacks? The amount of exhaust being released from Pike traffic will be the same as it is now, even if unfiltered. A project should not be held hostage because it maintains the status quo air quality and fails to go above and beyond its goals to improve it.

Apropos, the noise pollution from the Pike would be drastically reduced.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Chris and Stellarfun, your thoughtful, intelligent questions overlapped a lot, so I combined the answers in this Q&A.

Q-1. Can air pollution be avoided in air rights development?
A-1. Yes. All I-90 and I-93 air pollution can be treated using technology identified during the Big Dig begun in 1984, and during New York?s World Trade Center site work begun in 2001.

Q-2. What happens to the air pollution?
A-2. It?s exhausted back into the communities. Four years ago, MTA, BRA, and the owners of Columbus Center decided to build at least 15 exhaust vents (12 mechanized + 3 non-mechanized) to capture, concentrate, and return all air pollution from the 14 rail way and road way tunnels below ? untreated ? back into the communities above. The average turnpike fan will deliver 577,273 cubic feet of highly concentrated toxic air per minute, creating a cross-town public health crisis. They kept this decision secret until after the Columbus Center public hearings were finished. I?ve illustrated here the 12 mechanized vents (red rectangles) and their impact areas (pink circles), using a map from the Master Plan, vent locations from the MTA vent study, and impact area diameters based on thousands of studies on file at the National Library of Medicine.

Q-3. Why doesn?t covering the transportation corridor end the pollution?
A-3. Concealment doesn?t constitute cleansing. Visually covering some pollution points did generate some pretty watercolors painted from safe angles, but exhausting 100% of the concentrated, polluted air back into the communities prevents any air quality improvement.

Q-4. Does the Master Plan consider turnpike air pollution a problem?
A-4. Yes. On PDF page 39, under ?goals for the corridor?, the Master Plan states, ?Protect the residential neighborhoods from transportation-related noise and air-pollution.?

Q-5. Does the Commonwealth consider turnpike air pollution a problem?
A-5. Yes. On 18 March 2003, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a 15-page ?Draft Environmental Impact Report Certificate #12459-R? that required the developer to disclose the then-secret MTA vent study, ?Conceptual Ventilation Study for the Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston? and to report on those findings regarding air rights development over the transportation corridor. The developers withheld the MTA vent study for years, and when EOEA-MEPA forced its disclosure, the developer buried it on page 891 of a 1,331-page impact report released on 15 May 2003, after public hearings had ended, to ensure it wouldn't be discussed. But the vent study didn?t inform the public as the Secretary had prescribed, and today, over four years later, even members of this forum remain unaware of the issues it presents.

Q-6. Does the federal government consider turnpike air pollution a problem?
A-6. Yes. The Clean Air Act of 1990 requires protection for ?susceptible populations.? The latest study, from Tufts University dated 9 August 2007, concludes that all near-highway residents ? everyone living in Boston?s air rights neighborhoods ? are susceptible populations. [An abstract and the full report are at www.EHJournal.net/content/6/1/23 for viewing an downloading.] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s National Ambient Quality Air Standards Manager, Dr. Karen Martin, stated at the July 2007 federal conference on particulate matter that the Clean Air Act requires that such communities receive ?health protection with an adequate margin of safety.?

Q-7. Are the owners keeping their promises to end air pollution?
A-7. No. Columbus Center?s new owner testified to Boston City Council that all of the fumes would be ?hermetically sealed below the site.? In fact, there are no airtight seals at all; none were proposed, none were approved, none are planned, and 100% of today?s and tomorrow?s air pollution would be exhausted ? untreated ? into residential communities. The new owner's testimony can be seen in the videotape of Boston City Council?s Committee Hearing on Planning & Economic Development, Docket 0524, 5 May 2006, around minute #14, at www.CityofBoston.gov/CityCouncil/cc_Video_Library.asp?id=197.

Q-8. Does the Master Plan require a park?
A-8. Yes. PDF pages 1, 15, 17, 80, 83, 84, 90, and 91 in the Master Plan illustrate that whenever the Parcel 16 tower exceeds 150', there must be a single, contiguous, 2-acre public park to compensate. The new owners insist upon a 420-foot skyscraper, so the 2-acre park is required, yet they replaced that park with a 633-car garage.

Q-9. What?s the difference between a single, contiguous park and multiple smaller parks?
A-9. Plenty. The sum of one contiguous park is superior to the total of four smaller ones on different streets, because chopping up the square feet diminishes the benefit, as shown in these public domain images adapted from the proposal.

Q-10. Is anyone opposed to Parcel 19 as open space?
A-10. No. There?s no public record of anyone opposing the Parcel 19 Park-ette. Unfortunately, the urban oasis for children, seniors, and pets portrayed by the pretty watercolors will never materialize, because Columbus Center alone has 5 air pollution exhaust points.

Q-11. Is there proof that the promised public parks are now private gardens?
A-11. Yes. In their 1,100-page, 99-year lease signed 2 May 2006, the new owners and MTA privatized 3 new parks totaling 37,350 s.f. This broken promise was questioned by the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, a statutory agency created by the legislature to review all air rights development contracts. In his 9 March 2006 response, MTA attorney Steven Charlip wrote to MHSAB, ?All Columbus Center open space will remain in private ownership? and ?the MTA will have no obligations related to parks.?
Columbus Center refers to the open space as ?state parks for the public?; however, the condominium owners decide when, how, and to what extent they will open, close, secure, operate, and maintain their privately owned green spaces. Nothing prevents them from re-defining their private gardens and expenses in ways contrary to the standard definition of ?public park.? The general public has no recourse.

Q-12. What was the bid process?
A-12. There was none. On 31 January 1997, MTA Chairman James Kerasiotes gave Columbus Center?s former owners a perpetual guarantee that: (1) they would face no competition; (2) if any competing proposal arose MTA would refuse it; (3) they would face no financial disclosure, and (4) they would pay only penny-on-the-dollar rent (about 1% of fair market value). The Framingham Service Plaza gas station and fast-food grill now pays MTA $12 million per year, but Columbus Center would pay only $12 million per century.

Q-13. Isn?t the 99-year lease less valuable than an outright sale?
A-13. No. On 6 March 2006, MTA purchased an independent, professional, fair-market-value property appraisal from Lincoln Property Company. On PDF page 96 of 120, appraiser Steven Foster wrote that the characteristics of the no-bid, no-disclosure, no-risk, sweetheart deal rendered any potential difference between the 99-year lease and an outright sale ?negligible.?

Q-14. When did the former owners sell to the new owners?
A-14. The Columbus Center project and company were sold 1.5 years ago. Columbus Center was first proposed on 18 December 1996 by Boston-based Winn Development, which for the next 11 years used over fifty different names for the venture. On 15 March 2006, Winn sold out to a 3-tier California investor:

? owner: CalPERS (?California Public Employees Retirement System, A Component Unit of the State of California?)
? subsidiary: CUIP (California Urban Investment Partners, a wholly owned subsidiary of CalPERS)
? consultant: MacFarlane Urban Realty Company (hired by CalPERS to manage its CUIP investments)

CalPERS now has majority ownership and control. It was CalPERS that executed the 99-year lease with MTA. As a sub-contractor to CALPERS, Winn retains only a small share of profits and losses, and has no independent control.

In 2006, CalPERS committed $145 million to the project, but then wrote to Commonwealth officials that the project was insolvent without a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies. The new California owners want the Massachusetts public to subsidize both the costs and the profits for a project they now claim costs $800 million.

 

[TC]

Ned,

Impressive detail on your post, but have just a couple of questions.

1) What Law requires developers to improve air quality?

2) If air quality was such an issue how did the community let the project get approved w/o the new technology?

It seemed like people were more concerned about height than the real issues that could have been addressed. Also I could never figure out why the community let the project go forward with the open tracks on parcel 18. People should have been pushing for this to be covered in exchange for more height and overall square footage.

3) The 'new owners' you listed just like part of the overall financing package. (Retirement pensions are commonly used to fund development.) By this logic, I don't own my condo or my car. Until any loan is paid off the banks are going to be listed as owners.

 

[statler]

Again, welcome and thanks for presenting a thoughtful counterpoint on the site. I hope you stick around and comment in some of the other threads.

Two points:

PDF pages 1, 15, 17, 80, 83, 84, 90, and 91 in the Master Plan illustrate that whenever the Parcel 16 tower exceeds 150', there must be a single, contiguous, 2-acre public park to compensate.

As an urban activist, do you feel this is good urban design?
There is another member on the board (ablarc) who is constantly railing against 'planning by numbers'. This would be a perfect example of that. Does that area really need a two acre park to 'compensate'?
To me it just feels like 1950's era suburban design mentality. Let the city be a city.
While I understand your distress over broken promises, they are promises that probably should not have been demanded in the first place. Put parks where it is logical to put parks, not where it is mandated by some archaic, one-size-fits-all formula.

Second. The pollution issue is a tough one. I'm sure treating all that exhaust (ala Big Dig style) is hugely expensive and would most likely derail any funding the developers need to complete the project. Would you be ok with a local/state/federally subsidy to help defray those cost?

 

[Ron Newman]

I don't believe the Big Dig vent stacks contain any treatment at all.

 

[statler]

This is about all I could find on the Big Dig vent technology:

The project's ventilation is a two-way full transverse system in which fresh air is blown through ducts under the road or in a tunnel wall and circulated through the tunnels by fans in the vent buildings. Simultaneously, vehicle exhaust is extracted through openings in the ceiling to rooftop exhaust stacks in the vent buildings and then dispersed into the atmosphere. The highway tunnels' three fan/shaft ventilation systems use about 14 miles (22.5 kilometers) of duct work, 139 double-width centrifugal fans that are 10 feet (3 meters) in diameter, 35 jet fans, and 8 axial fans. Eleven of the project's ramp tunnels will use a jet-fan-based longitudinal/semi-transverse ventilation system.

Link

 

[KentXie]

I just want to say, whether Columbus Center is built or not, the there will STILL be pollution going into the air from the Pike ANYWAYS. In other words, the neighborhood prefers a polluting canyon over a development that may not contain it but will provide jobs and housing? I don't get it.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

In reply to Statler and TC...

Q-15. How did the community let the project get approved with 7 open railways, and without new air pollution technology?
A-15. No one ?let? approval happen. In 1997, Mayor Menino signed a legal agreement that let this developer dictate who the Mayor could appoint to his own advisory committee. Menino gave 7 seats to the development team, but only 4 seats to democratically nominated delegates from the affected communities. On every issue, the 7 members sitting in seats owned by MTA, BRA, and Columbus Center voted for developer profit over public health. The 4 members nominated by the public were always out-numbered, so the public never had a chance.

Q-16. Did people push for more density to pay for for full railway enclosure and air cleansing?
A-16. Yes. Citizens worked for years to get full railway enclosure and air cleansing, but the developer?s lawyers vigorously fought every attempt to publicly audit the actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies per the rules of GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards). When the developer labeled full enclosure and cleaning as ?impossible,? the public debate among citizens, government, and media couldn?t even get started. The only people to ever see the actual financials are those whose work was funded by the developer, and who signed gag orders to stay silent.

Q-17. Wasn?t air quality an issue?
A-17. Yes. It always was and still is an issue; however, Columbus Center withheld the MTA vent study for years, and released it only after the public hearings ended, thereby preventing public debate. The public couldn?t argue about data that it didn?t yet have.

Q-18. What law requires developers to improve air quality?
A-18. State and federal agencies generally prohibit air quality from getting worse, but no law requires that it be improved. In vented neighborhoods, air quality would needlessly worsen if concentrated air pollution is pumped through each of the 12 mechanized exhaust vents.

Q-19. Is air cleansing an appropriate use of public subsidy?
A-19. Yes. But government must design, build, own, operate, maintain, and insure the cleansing system. The current developers are allowed to sell and run at any moment (even before construction finishes), but the public transportation corridor and its potential pollution will continue; therefore, citizens need a public entity to ensure permanent air cleansing. One of the best reasons for air rights development is it creates the opportunity to enclose and cleanse the air pollution generated by the transportation corridor.

Q-20. Is trading density for parks good urban design?
A-20. Yes. Financial reality (?planning by numbers?) is inescapable, so the Master Plan authors and most citizens still feel it?s a fair trade to use the profits from excess density to create a ?substantial? public open space (Master Plan, PDF page 84) that is publicly owned, operated, and maintained. The only urban public property available to create substantial public open space in Boston is in air rights, so it has to be either there or nowhere. Unfortunately, Columbus Center kept the ≈300% density, but deleted the 2-acre park and replaced it with a 633-car garage.

Q-21. Aren?t the new owners merely silent financiers, like the bank that owns my car until I finish repaying the loan?
A-21. No. The new owners control all decisions, and hired heir own private real estate firm to manage the Columbus Center company and the project in a very hands-on manner. The CalPERS-CUIP- MacFarlane contract requires constant reports on engineering, finance, management, politics, and marketing. Your car loan financier doesn?t schedule your oil changes, check your brakes, enforce speed limits, or choose your passengers, but the CalPERS team is doing the exact equivalent at Columbus Center.

 

[Ron Newman]

Does this area need a 'substantial' open space, when Copley Square is just blocks away?

 

[czsz]

Ned's arguments all appear to be holding the developers to account for promises made solely to pacify NIMBYs' concerns in the first place. The project doesn't need to improve Boston's air quality or provide a linear park over a sequence of squares in order to meet the threshhold of providing a utilitarian benefit to the city as a whole.

 

[statler]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Financial reality (?planning by numbers?) is inescapable, so the Master Plan authors and most citizens still feel it?s a fair trade to use the profits from excess density to create a ?substantial? public open space (Master Plan, PDF page 84) that is publicly owned, operated, and maintained. The only urban public property available to create substantial public open space in Boston is in air rights, so it has to be either there or nowhere. Unfortunately, Columbus Center kept the ≈300% density, but deleted the 2-acre park and replaced it with a 633-car garage.

A few things in this paragraph I still disagree with.

1. Planning by numbers" is 'inescapable'. - I'm just a armchair urbanist so I can't disprove this, but our resident practicing architect has decried this as a self-perpetuating myth many, many times. Hopefully he will join the conversation.

2.[M]ost citizens still feel it?s a fair trade to use the profits from excess density to create a ?substantial? public open space - a. I would disagree with 'most citizens'. They are normally concerned with there own personal objectives, rather than the health of the city as a whole. See: tragedy of the commons. b. I'm not sure where your figure of 'excess' density comes from. How is this figure determined?

3. kept the ≈300% density - Again, where does this figure come from? How is it determined? For most true urban activists, higher densities are a sought after goal. Why is it different here?

 

[KentXie]

I still say a development over the pike with air pollution is better than no development with air pollution. The whole argument about air quality isn't a sound argument. All the vents will be located on the CC project. Its going to pump the same air pollution into the air as the air pollution that escape from the highway canyon anyways. It makes no difference and since there isn't a requirement to clean the air (thought I wish it does) then the argument is null and void.

 

[singbat]

Does this area need a 'substantial' open space, when Copley Square is just blocks away?

I was about to hit the button to say something similar -- so I'll second this. i was thinking of the public garden -- very close to the Arlington end.

as I've mentioned before I spent many years living on beacon hill. my experience says that the garden and the common are rarely used heavily off the main walks through -- probably lunch time is an exception, but in general it isn't Wingaersheek Beach in July. (Also, btw, Louisburg Sq. doesn't need to be any bigger to be wonderfully effective, so why shouldn't we aspire to another such fine pocket park?)

i guess personally i would be jealous of anything that tries to usurp focus (and upkeep) from the four main jewels of Boston public space:

-- Copley
-- the Garden
-- the Common
-- the Esplanade

therefore I am not a huge fan of the Greenway and I wouldn't advocate any effort to increase the use of the Comm ave park, as beautiful as that stretch is.

small parks to create minor focus areas downtown, fine. larger parks within blocks of what should be world class parks is, for me, an unacceptable distraction.

just my take, but for me it's similar to the issue with charter schools, and private high schools. if it's not good enough lets make it better -- but lets not just make something new that will siphon off more resources.

 

[stellarfun]

Ned, thanks for your comprehensive and detailed reply.

Several comments:

MTA attorney Steven Charlip wrote to MHSAB, ?All Columbus Center open space will remain in private ownership? and ?the MTA will have no obligations related to parks.? Columbus Center refers to the open space as ?state parks for the public?; however, the condominium owners decide when, how, and to what extent they will open, close, secure, operate, and maintain their privately owned green spaces. Nothing prevents them from re-defining their private gardens and expenses in ways contrary to the standard definition of ?public park.?

By that definition, a park maintained by private entities is a private park. Hence, Post Office Square park (Leventhal Park) is not a public park. I believe most people view that park as a public park.

And the cost of a contiguous, two acre park built on a deck over the turnpike is quite simply, a ridiculous expenditure. The cost of such a park probably approaches the current landscaping expenditure for the entire Greenway.

The Framingham Service Plaza gas station and fast-food grill now pays MTA $12 million per year, but Columbus Center would pay only $12 million per century

You are comparing apples and oranges. The service center derives its income from users of the Turnpike, Columbus Center has no income from turnpike users.. And I believe that the MTA collects one percent of resale price of any residential sales over the 99 year period of the lease. So the total payment ought to be substantially greater than the $12 million.

I think the only way you get a count of seven train tracks at Back Bay station is to include the Orange Line tracks, which are non-polluting.

I also don't understand the financing. How did calPERS acquire a majority interest in a $800 million project by investing only $145 million? What happened to the reported Irish bank equity stake?

 

[kz1000ps]

small parks to create minor focus areas downtown, fine. larger parks within blocks of what should be world class parks is, for me, an unacceptable distraction.

I wholeheartedly agree. Ned's statement that contiguous parkland is inherently better than pocket parks and the like may be true (I happen to disagree), but in mature cities you rarely have that ability to just create a large new park. And regardless of site constraints, I just don't see the need for one here.

Personal anecdote: my favorite park in the city is the tiny one [~600 sq ft] at the corner of Church and Melrose Streets in the Bay Village. I don't need some 5-acre expanse to be happy, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

If anything this part of town needs playing fields, but one soccer/softball combo field would eat up the two acres, and they'd have to be contiguous acres, so that's probably not an option. Still, I think other forms of active recreation (basketball, volleyball, tennis, horseshoes, ect.) could be incorporated while still leaving space for a decent enough sized grass/plaza/benches passive park.

What's "decent enough" ? That's entirely subjective, but for me it would be a quarter- to a half-acre.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

In reply to Ron, Czsz, Statler, DarkFenX, Singbat, and Stellarfun...

Q-22. If an air rights project doesn?t improve air quality, can it still be built anyway?
A-22. No. While there?s no law requiring that air quality be improved, degrading air quality as currently proposed (regardless of other benefits) is illegal: 12 mechanized vents, delivering concentrated, toxic air into residential neighborhoods, at an average rate of 577,273 cubic feet, per minute, per vent. In addition, Columbus Center?s owners promised on videotape, on audiotape, in hearing minutes, in written proposals, and in public subsidy requests to ?improve air quality.? The quantity, frequency and absoluteness of those promises made their approvals contingent upon air quality improvement, so on this project, improving air quality is a requirement of the developer?s own doing.

Q-23. Isn?t ?pollution-with-development? better than ?pollution-with-no-development??
A-23. No. That ?either-or? approach is neither the answer, nor even the question, and it hides the best option: ?no-pollution-with-development?. The technology exists to collect, concentrate, and cleanse the air before it is exhausted, thus protecting public health within existing and new buildings.

Q-24. How did the Master Plan define ?nominal? versus ?excess? density?
A-24. Nominal height is 150 feet (100% density); Columbus Center proposes 420 feet (280% density). To reach the highest possible density without undue harm, the Master Plan set each parcel?s density as the optimum amount that would achieve financial success (higher density) while simultaneously avoiding harm in the areas of urban design, traffic, parking, pedestrians, bicyclists, wind, shadow, air, noise, groundwater, historic resources, and infrastructure (lower density).

Q-25. Does the 7-acre tunnel / deck / basement cost more than land-based construction?
A-25. No. Three separate, professional organizations estimated the tunnel / deck / basement cost:

? $31 million per Hanscomb cost estimators (4 April 2002)
? $12 million per Columbus Center?s new owners (22 February 2006)
? $37 million per Lincoln Property fair-market-value appraisers (6 March 2006)

With a tunnel / deck / basement cost of $1.7 ? $5.3 million per acre, air rights construction appears equal to or less than land-based construction, including the average costs and/or savings from demolition, excavation, contamination, groundwater remediation, labor, and materials.

Q-26. Is there a ?deck cost premium??
A-26. No. The Master Plan does allow excess density as a way to pay for only those tunnel / deck / basement costs that exceed the equivalent land-based costs; however, no such premium was ever proved. With air rights construction costing equal to or less than land-based construction, there is no ?deck cost premium? that could justify excess density.

Q-27. Isn?t higher density better?
A-27. Yes, but only if it does no damage. This philosophy is mirrored in the health profession?s motto since ancient times, ?First, do no harm.? The Master Plan set nominal densities at the highest possible levels while incurring no harm, and in rare cases allowed for excess density in exchange for unique, outstanding public realm benefits deemed to be worth the sacrifice. At Columbus Center, excess density on Parcel 16 is permissible only when accompanied by a substantial, contiguous, 2-acre public park on Parcel 18 or 17.

Q-28. Could creating the new 2-acre park take attention or funds away from other parks?
A-28. No. Existing parks would suffer no harm at all, because the developer?s official proposal (documented in 12 years of videotapes, audiotapes, hearing minutes, proposals, and subsidy requests) promised to create and perpetually maintain the new 2-acre park with the profits from the skyscraper?s excess density. In particular, Boston?s largest parks ? Greenway, Esplanade, Fens, Garden, Common, Commonwealth ? would suffer no harm at all from creating the new, required 2-acre open space, because nearby parks validate and enhance each other. There?s no such thing as one good park ?distracting? from another, because Boston?s parks are complementary jewels on a single necklace, not battle-of-the-bands rock stars competing in sports arenas.

Q-29. Aren?t pocket parks like Louisburg Square better than large parks?
A-29. No. Tiny pocket parks serve few people and few purposes at any given moment, whereas large parks concurrently serve many more people in many different ways.

Q-30. When people view property as public, doesn?t that make it public?
Q-30. No. For example, both Leventhal Park (at Post Office Square) and Ring Road (across Prudential Center) are assumed by virtually everyone to be public property. They are not; they are privately owned, operated, and maintained. Public users have no rights to visit those properties, cross them, or use them; they get to do so only so long as the owners permit them to. Any person or group told to leave either leaves immediately, or else gets arrested for trespassing. People who doubt this should try handing out campaign flyers, and notice how quickly they?re escorted off site.

Q-31. Among MTA rental properties, how do air rights sites compare to land-based sites?
A-31. They?re the same. Both are rented by MTA to commercial tenants to generate fair-market-value income for the Commonwealth, so it makes no difference what kinds of businesses or customers generate the revenues from which MTA?s rent gets paid. MTA had hoped to impose a 1% tax on each air rights condominium resale, but owners can easily avoid that through a variety of legal maneuvers.

Q-32. How does CalPERS own the majority of an $800 million project by investing only $145 million?
A-32. The project is funded mostly by bank loans, then by public subsidies, and least of all by equity from owners. Primarily, the project would be funded by commercial loans from Anglo Irish Bank of Dublin, Ireland, with the bank as a creditor, not an owner. Secondarily, the project would be funded by public subsidies from city, state, and federal agencies, none of which is fully aware of all the others. Lastly, the project would be funded by equity owners, of which CalPERS holds the majority interest. Owners are providing the smallest share of the project funds; among the owners, however, CalPERS owns the largest share.

 

[TC]

Ned,

Just one more question ......

If you had to choose between the Columbus Center as currently approved or leave the Turnpike exposed for the next 100 years, which would you choose?

 

[KentXie]

I believe that the answer to my question is a matter of opinion. Yes the best option would be no pollution with development. However, people never always get what they want do they? (as in we want to fill the canyon while others want to cleanse the air. In the end nobody gets what they want so I guess they should put in an air filtering system.) Anyway I am for the cleansing of the air. Was One Kenmore also require to cleanse the air also?

 

[statler]

Q-24. How did the Master Plan define ?nominal? versus ?excess? density?
A-24. Nominal height is 150 feet (100% density); Columbus Center proposes 420 feet (280% density). To reach the highest possible density without undue harm, the Master Plan set each parcel?s density as the optimum amount that would achieve financial success (higher density) while simultaneously avoiding harm in the areas of urban design, traffic, parking, pedestrians, bicyclists, wind, shadow, air, noise, groundwater, historic resources, and infrastructure (lower density).

Can you (or anyone) prove that higher densities are harmful to these areas?

Q-27. Isn?t higher density better?
A-27. Yes, but only if it does no damage. This philosophy is mirrored in the health profession?s motto since ancient times, ?First, do no harm.? The Master Plan set nominal densities at the highest possible levels while incurring no harm, and in rare cases allowed for excess density in exchange for unique, outstanding public realm benefits deemed to be worth the sacrifice. At Columbus Center, excess density on Parcel 16 is permissible only when accompanied by a substantial, contiguous, 2-acre public park on Parcel 18 or 17.

How does a 2 acre park offset the supposed harm done by "excess" density?

Q-29. Aren?t pocket parks like Louisburg Square better than large parks?
A-29. No. Tiny pocket parks serve few people and few purposes at any given moment, whereas large parks concurrently serve many more people in many different ways.

Thought experiment: Propose to the residents of Beacon Hill the we knock down a few Louisburg Square row houses and expand the park so that we get a better density/open space ratio. What are expected reactions?

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

If you had to choose between the Columbus Center as currently approved or leave the Turnpike exposed for the next 100 years, which would you choose?

I don't think this is a fair question to ask. Of course most people (Ned included) would like to see the Pike covered but what Ned is saying is that the developers have not held up their end and have tried to push around the community.

This reminds me of Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, but not as bad.