Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
^^ While that is true, and the developers should be held accountable, I still think the 'Master Plan' was poorly thought out.
The blame for this lies with both the developer and the community.
The community should have had a more holistic approach to what they wanted the development to be (ditch the open space requirements & density issues -focus on the environmental issues) and the developer should have been a lot more open about the costs and financing involved.
In an ideal world there is a solution that is profitable to the developer and good for the city as a whole. Unfortunately, this is already so screwed up to a fair-thee-well that it would require starting from scratch. :(
 
Van said:
TC said:
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.

How is that not a fair question? I'm asking Ned to pick between the approved project or not to build at all.

In the real world nobody gets everything they want or ask for. People, Business's, Politicians, etc. all negotiate and make compromises in order to move forward.

The answer to the question will determine whether or not we are dealing with a selfish neighbor out to derail a project because he lives next door or if we are really dealing with a concerned citizen who is looking out for Boston's best interests.
 
TC said:
How is that not a fair question? I'm asking Ned to pick between the approved project or not to build at all.

In the real world nobody gets everything they want or ask for. People, Business's, Politicians, etc. all negotiate and make compromises in order to move forward.

Umm... you don't see the contradiction?? This shouldn't be an everything-or-nothing situation.

The answer to the question will determine whether or not we are dealing with a selfish neighbor out to derail a project because he lives next door or if we are really dealing with a concerned citizen who is looking out for Boston's best interests.

I think he is a neighbor who wants the best for the city and neighborhood and who's ideas about how to go about that are different from yours. Please try taking your own advice and live in the real world; try to see that other people have different ideas.
 
Ned, this is great info, but you've stated a few opinions as facts. Clearly, you've been fighting in the trenches on this one for a while and perhaps some of these opinions seem so obvious to you as to take on the appearance of fact, but reasonable minds may disagree.

To take issue with but two of your points: Nearby parks may validate and enhance one another as you state, or they may not. Personally, I'd rather concentrate resources on creating and maintaining really well-used, small public squares than on creating large expanses of lawn. I grew up in a city with enough "greenspace" to make even your head spin, and guess what? It sucked. Also, you state that condo owners could easily avoid paying the MTA their 1% tithing through a number of legal maneuvers. Please, do tell, what are these maneuvers? I have a number clients that have had to pay just such a fee (generally on MassPort parcels) and they'll hand me my head on a plate when they learn I could have saved them all that money.
 
The Bay Village Neighborhood Association, among many other groups, continues to strongly support this project.

This quote comes from Mark Slater, President of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, from his letter to the editor published in Boston Globe, 7/14/2007. Is he and the Bay Village group less informed than Ned Flaherty? What other neighborhood groups support this project?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Umm... you don't see the contradiction?? This shouldn't be an everything-or-nothing situation.

It's just a question.

There have been over 150 meetings to work out the details of this project, so it was never been an all or nothing. But now that the project is approved revisiting the details (even thought interesting conversation) is a mute point.

Realistically the project is either going to get built as approved or it's not going to get built at all (due to financing). I just wanted to know what Ned would choose.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
TC said:
The answer to the question will determine whether or not we are dealing with a selfish neighbor out to derail a project because he lives next door or if we are really dealing with a concerned citizen who is looking out for Boston's best interests.

I think he is a neighbor who wants the best for the city and neighborhood and who's ideas about how to go about that are different from yours. Please try taking your own advice and live in the real world; try to see that other people have different ideas.

There's no definitive way to say which of those two views are correct, but the residents of 75 Clarendon and the Pope Building have been the most determined of the "civic-minded" citizens opposing this project, so looking at the evolution of The Clarendon may provide some insight.

This is the original proposal for the Clarendon.

clarendon-r1-orig.jpg


Sometime later this "flipped" design appeared.

Clarendon-rend-2a.jpg


Consider the odd angle of the rendering showing the view corridor the flip creates for the Pope Building, the high-walled shaded canyon the new design creates on Clarendon St, and the lack of "community" outcry over the design change and draw your own conclusions.
 
Replies for TC, DarkFenX, Statler, Chumbolly, and Atlantaden...

Q-33. Must we choose between ?filling the canyon? and ?cleansing the air??
A-33. No.
The canyon can be filled ? and it should be, and the air can be cleansed ? and it must be, because the federal Clean Air Act of 1990 requires protection of all adjacent human beings from the amounts and types of pollution now slated to surround air rights sites city-wide.

Q-34. TC asks, ?If you had to choose between Columbus Center?s latest proposal versus an exposed transportation corridor for 100 more years, which would you choose??
A-34. Those are the two worst scenarios, and nobody has to accept either of them.
Framing the debate around only the two worst options is unnecessary ? and irresponsible. Columbus Center is a 12-year-old paper proposal requiring so much public subsidy that it never broke ground. Here?s what should have happened, and what should happen now. MTA should obtain at least three genuine, competitive proposals, with financial disclosure, that comply with the Master Plan. The best one should be selected by a fair and open public process that avoids the eight failures which caused the current dilemma:
? (1) The Mayor?s advisory committee seats must never again be owned by proponents.
? (2) The public process calendar must never again be dictated by the proponents.
? (3) Public hearing transcripts must never again be edited by proponents.
? (4) Public hearings must never again be secretly recorded by anyone.
? (5) Citizens must be able to record public hearings as outlined in the Open Meeting law.
? (6) Public subsidies must never again be concealed.
? (7) The MTA vent study must be published before public hearings start, not after they?ve ended.
? (8) Proposals that violate the Master Plan must never again be approved.

Q-35. Is higher density harmful to this area?
A-35. Yes.
Most of the nearby streets were sized before long cars were invented, then built around, and so can never be widened. To a 2-block stretch that already suffers frequent gridlock, Columbus Center proposes to add 917 more parking spaces supporting at least 3,000 more daily trips, which will increase each year thereafter.

Q-36. How does a 2-acre park offset excess density?
A-36. It trades one damaging impact for another beneficial impact.
Parks and density can?t literally cancel each other out because they?re completely different elements, but profits from the damaging one (density) can enable the beneficial one (parks). When the owner of a stolen but insured family heirloom diamond gets compensated by an insurance reimbursement, everyone knows the cash can never reverse the theft, but it does the next best thing by compensating in ways that are left to the victim to choose. In this case, the Master Plan specified that damage from excess density must be compensated for by reimbursing the victim ? the public realm ? with open space.

Q-37. Should we demolish some Louisburg Square row homes to widen its park?
A-37. No.
The homes are already rightfully owned, and buying them back is too costly for the few feet of open space that would result. It?s too late to expand the park now, but everyone would be grateful today if, in 1840, the creators had built more open space for future generations to enjoy.

Q-38. How would condominium owners avoid paying MTA?s 1% re-sale tax?
A-38. The loopholes can?t be identified until a few years from now,
after the new 99-year lease is executed and the condominium documents are published. On 7 April 2007 the new owners claimed they?d already secured a new MTA lease last winter, but MTA won?t confirm or deny anything until after it?s too late for the public or state government to have any impact. Also, condominium documents are usually finished just before sales start. So defining the exact loopholes will have to wait a few years.
Some facts are known, however. The 451 condominiums total 984,847 s.f., average 2,184 s.f., and are slated to sell for $1 - $3 million. People who own such apartments also have accountants and lawyers whose core business is redefining assets to avoid taxes. They?ll surely spend a few hours to avoid that $10,000-$30,000 tax. Common methods already in use include:

? (a) making a condominium an asset of a corporation that always owns it so that the corporation may change hands but the condominium owner remains the corporation, which keeps the re-sale tax from ever coming due;
? (b) making a condominium an asset of a Trust which always owns it so that the Trustee may rotate but the condominium owner always remains the Trust, which keeps the re-sale tax from ever coming due;
? (c) making a condominium a family-run ?charity?; etcetera.

I haven?t done any of the above, and am not suggesting anyone should cheat the MTA which is part of the Commonwealth, but such asset reclassification techniques are common among the well-heeled.

Q-39. What other neighborhood groups endorsed or opposed the Columbus Center proposal?
A-39. During the height of the public hearings, Columbus Center was opposed by the largest and most representative organizations:
Conservation Law Foundation, Boston Preservation Alliance, Committee for Responsible Turnpike Development, Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, South End Ellis Neighborhood Association, Bay Village Neighborhood Association, Claremont Neighborhood Association, Stanhope Street Improvement Association, Union Park Neighborhood Association, and Old Dover Neighborhood Association.

Several small non-profits became ardent endorsers, but only after Columbus Center promised them cash, which they omitted from their endorsement letters.

Q-40. Why did Bay Village first align with its neighbors in opposition, and then reverse itself and become an endorser?
A-40. The developers promised BVNA officers the lowest density as close to them as possible, the highest density as far away as possible, and a park-ette at their homes.
The developers promised BVNA President John Shope (56 Fayette Street) and BVNA Vice President & Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Christine Colley (43 Melrose Street) that Columbus Center would put the most dense elements as far from their homes as possible, put the least dense elements as close to their homes as possible, and create a park-ette in front of Shope?s home and one block from Colley?s home. Once assured of those promises, BVNA officers reversed their position from opposing to endorsing.

Park-ette-vent.jpg


Q-41. Are Bay Village residents less informed?
A-41. Yes.
It?s not clear if the NIMBY-ism of refusing density and demanding a park-ette is only the work of Shope and Colley, or also involves subsequent BVNA officers, and/or members. What is clear, however, is that Bay Village residents have heard nothing from their association officers about:
? (a) the 15 air pollution exhaust vents citywide (my Q&A #2 with map);
? (b) the 5 air pollution exhaust vents at Columbus Center (my Q&A #10 with model); or
? (c) the fact that on 9 March 2006 the promised public parks were made into private gardens with no public recourse (my Q&A #11).

Q-42. What is former BVNA Vice President Christine Colley?s role now?
A-42. The BRA pays Colley to fix promises that BRA and developers break.
Shortly after sherpherding Columbus Center?s approval vote through the developer-owned seats on the Mayor?s Advisory Committee that she chaired, Colley was rewarded with a BRA job that has paid her so far over $300,000, plus benefits, plus free parking on public school property next to her home. In 2004, BRA Director Mark Maloney said that after multiple exhaustive searches, he?d chosen Colley as the best imaginable candidate for a ?Promise Keeper? to rectify the 50-year history of the BRA and its developers making and breaking promises.

Colley has an unprecedented opportunity to rectify the damage that she and Shope helped cause, because now it?s her job. She should force the developer to deliver a park-ette that matches the one promised in the pretty water color drawings, i.e., one where all the air is safely breathable by humans and their pets. And she should ensure that all 5 of Columbus Center?s air pollution exhaust vents deliver the ?cleaner air? that the developer repeatedly promised in videotapes, audiotapes, meeting minutes, proposals, and public subsidy applications. She needs do no research, because those promises are all on file in her own office.
 
Q and A

Yeesh I find the tone of that Q and A to be condescending, pedantic, and myopic. I just breezed through the previous posts and couldn't find much evidence of the 'Q's that Ned alludes to in his numbered post. It kind of seems like a recycled policy piece that was trotted out under false pretenses. But that's fine, I'm glad to hear the opposing viewpoint in the forum. I may strongly disagree with most of Ned's opinions, but he provides a healthy balance to the debate.
 
Re: Q and A

sidewalks said:
Yeesh I find the tone of that Q and A to be condescending, pedantic, and myopic. I just breezed through the previous posts and couldn't find much evidence of the 'Q's that Ned alludes to in his numbered post. It kind of seems like a recycled policy piece that was trotted out under false pretenses. But that's fine, I'm glad to hear the opposing viewpoint in the forum. I may strongly disagree with most of Ned's opinions, but he provides a healthy balance to the debate.

All these Q&A presentations remind me of those press conferences in totalitarian countries where the government provides the reporters the questions they will be asking the head of state. Talk about controlling the dialogue!
 
Q-37. Should we demolish some Louisburg Square row homes to widen its park?
A-37. No. The homes are already rightfully owned, and buying them back is too costly for the few feet of open space that would result. It's too late to expand the park now, but everyone would be grateful today if, in 1840, the creators had built more open space for future generations to enjoy.
You must then be quite relieved that the planners of Government Center have learned from the mistakes of the planners of Louisbourg Sq., and left plenty of open space for present and future generations to enjoy.

Q-36. How does a 2-acre park offset excess density?
A-36. It trades one damaging impact for another beneficial impact. Parks and density can't literally cancel each other out because they're completely different elements, but profits from the damaging one (density) can enable the beneficial one (parks). When the owner of a stolen but insured family heirloom diamond gets compensated by an insurance reimbursement, everyone knows the cash can never reverse the theft, but it does the next best thing by compensating in ways that are left to the victim to choose. In this case, the Master Plan specified that damage from excess density must be compensated for by reimbursing the victim - the public realm - with open space.
So you obviously take it as axiomatic that open space is always good and density is always bad. If you care to test your axiom against reality, I suggest crossing D street between from the new Harbor Residences to WTC east. I for one think that this sort of suburban abstraction has badly hurt Boston in the past 50 years or so, If you'd prefer a theoretical test, I put to you

Q-42. Could there be such a thing as excess open space, above the Turnpike or in general?

justin
 
Re: Q and A

xec said:
All these Q&A presentations remind me of those press conferences in totalitarian countries where the government provides the reporters the questions they will be asking the head of state. Talk about controlling the dialogue!

Funny, it reminds me of Rumsfeld's approach to press conferences....

Following up on Ned's point about avoiding the MTA transfer tax, nice idea regarding the corporate ownership, but in reality, no lender would extend a mortgage loan under those circumstances, unless it was at a higher, commercial interest rate, which would quickly defeat the purpose of the avoidance scheme. Sure, some buyers could pay cash, but given that in Massachusetts we currently have a transfer tax on all property of just under .5% (the stamp tax) and I have yet to see anyone employ such an avoidance scheme (and I've seen some very pricey properties change hands (think eight-figure homes and high nine-figure power plants--the latter of which incur stamp taxes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars), I call red herring. And condo docs have nothing to do with it -- the condo will hold title in the form of a ground lease, and that lease, and the obligations to pay the transfer tax contained therein, will be in the chain of title in front of the condo docs.

Frankly, Ned, I think that you doth protest too much.
 
Q-37. Should we demolish some Louisburg Square row homes to widen its park?
A-37. No.
The homes are already rightfully owned, and buying them back is too costly for the few feet of open space that would result. It?s too late to expand the park now, but everyone would be grateful today if, in 1840, the creators had built more open space for future generations to enjoy.


Alright Ned, I've read your pish posh long enough and have almost vomited at the archaic and regressive logic of yours. What exactly would you have done with Louisburg Square in the 1840's if you were the preeminent urban hacktivist of the day. Do you have any concept of what little land existed in the city in 1840? If the Common, four blocks away does not constitute satisfactory open space, then you have some serious issues with urban design. You moved to a city, and frankly to bitch and whine about relatively minor development like you live in frickin Edgartown is beyond me.
 
Q-35. Is higher density harmful to this area?
A-35. Yes. Most of the nearby streets were sized before long cars were invented, then built around, and so can never be widened. To a 2-block stretch that already suffers frequent gridlock, Columbus Center proposes to add 917 more parking spaces supporting at least 3,000 more daily trips, which will increase each year thereafter.

Not necessarily true. CC is right next to a T station which will offset a lot of traffic going into the area. You have to realize that most Boston can not be widen but are able to handle the extra load. If such trivial thing as a little bit more traffic prevent development, Boston will become a stagnant city and will not be able to grow because of the constriction of traffic. Encourage more people to use the T by expanding service and this problem can be solved. Cities like Boston are expected to grow and it will be inevitable that developments like these will spring up in Boston that may bring more traffic. This is a city. Traffic is one of the unfortunate side effects of a city and developments such as the CC are the norm. If you rather live somewhere that has no traffic and no air pollution, try the suburbs. You will not find anything like this here.
 
Ned Flaherty said:
Q-35. Is higher density harmful to this area?
A-35. Yes.
Most of the nearby streets were sized before long cars were invented, then built around, and so can never be widened. To a 2-block stretch that already suffers frequent gridlock, Columbus Center proposes to add 917 more parking spaces supporting at least 3,000 more daily trips, which will increase each year thereafter.

I'm Ok with eliminating those parking spaces. We're agreed! Let them use trains.

Ned Flaherty said:
Q-36. How does a 2-acre park offset excess density?
A-36. It trades one damaging impact for another beneficial impact.
Parks and density can?t literally cancel each other out because they?re completely different elements, but profits from the damaging one (density) can enable the beneficial one (parks). When the owner of a stolen but insured family heirloom diamond gets compensated by an insurance reimbursement, everyone knows the cash can never reverse the theft, but it does the next best thing by compensating in ways that are left to the victim to choose. In this case, the Master Plan specified that damage from excess density must be compensated for by reimbursing the victim ? the public realm ? with open space.

I respect your opinion but I refuse to equate 'density' with 'damaging'. Cities are dense for all kinds of good solid economic and cultural reasons. Managing density is a challenge, but in and of itself it is not a bad thing -- rather it is a nearly unequivocal good that must be provided for by responsible public servants.

The problem with density is that it tends towards being a 'tragedy of the commons' situation. Everyone's best individual interest is to free ride. However, that's exactly the kind of market that the state was invented to regulate. So, lets get back to how to ADD density to this site in a responsible way -- then post a memo to the BRA to let them in on it.


Ned Flaherty said:
Q-37. Should we demolish some Louisburg Square row homes to widen its park?
A-37. No.
The homes are already rightfully owned, and buying them back is too costly for the few feet of open space that would result. It?s too late to expand the park now, but everyone would be grateful today if, in 1840, the creators had built more open space for future generations to enjoy.

Slow down there old boy. I am a former resident of the hill (~ 8 years of service in that) and lived in a house that backed up to Louisburg Sq. and I can tell you two things with some degree of authority: the park is hardly ever used, and there is a considerable body of opinion (including mine and my wife's) that it is perfect as it now is. What is more, the main leisure activity of the hill is walking the narrow dense unplanned streets and taking in the beautiful street scape.

I agree with another poster: too much opinion stated as fact. Please come back but with more of the verifiable stuff.
 
I can't really add to what been said already, except to echo a few points.

We all agree to reduce the number of parking spots. (Of course, in exchange for higher density, rather than open space)

The hue and cry for more open space has, as justin has pointed out, led to spaces such as Government Center and the South Boston Waterfront. Both perfect examples of poor urban design.

Louisberg Sq. is in my opinion (and the opinon of many others) one the most perfect urban spaces in America. One of the few on par with European counterparts.

For the record, I like the question and answer format and while your answers seem a bit rote at times, I find them well written.
 
The obvious question

It seems as though many of the people who comment on the Architectural Boston forum actually live outside of Boston. There are high school students in New Hampshire, high school students in North Carolina, high sch... I mean, others in Atlanta, overseas, etc.

So, how many people actually live in the city?

In this specific case, how many of you have actually spent any amount of time in the Back Bay / South End neighborhood?

Have any of you actually been to the site of this project?

Do you think it is important to understand it from the point of view of someone who actually lives there (and has lived there, for years?).

From my questions, you can guess, I think it is!
 
I know that some of you find the numbered questions/answers to be condescending, but it's the best way for Ned to present his ideas.
 
Ned, I think your boitch about the missing two acre public park should be raised with the mayor and the citizens who continued to re-elect him, not with the Turnpike, or CalPERS, or Winn-Cassin.

This mayor simply does not seem interested in having the city of Boston acquire any more parkland; not enough money in his budgets to adequately maintain the current park system, let alone take on responsibility for more. Examples in point: the Greenway, the new Bremen St. Park in East Boston, both of which the city took an ownership pass on. The only way you would ever get a publicly owned and maintained air rights park at Columbus Center would be for the Turnpike to build and maintain it. I'm sure the taxpayers and motorists of Massachusetts would be delighted to see that.

As for the financing, I empathize with your complaints about the financial opacity of the dealmaking. I can't find out much either. If, as you say, CalPERS is the entity signing the equivalent of a ground lease with the Turnpike, I can find no mention of such on the CalPERS website, nor any indication that CalPERS have yet actually put any money into this project. As for MacFarlane, a tidbit here and there but no big announcement of that company's role. Bloomberg did have a snippet on August 23rd that CalPERS had effectively bounced MacFarlane from a $950 million Gehry project in LA.
See:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601206&sid=ae2EeJgDG690&refer=realestate

As for who has as ownership stake in Columbus Center and how much the individual stakes are, I remain confused. You said that the Angle-Irish bank was lending much of the money for the project, but who are they lending it to? Almost surely not to CalPERS, and probably not to MacFarlane, so that would seem to leave Winn as the borrower/recipient.
 
Re: The obvious question

JimboJones said:
So, how many people actually live in the city?

for the record, and for the newcomers, plenty. even more are former residents. as for the high school students, I say get 'em early.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top