Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

SOME HAIL, OTHERS DOUBT COMMUNITY'S INFLUENCE IN PROJECT

Boston Globe
Author(s): Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff Date: December 10, 2002 Page: C4 Section: Business
A week from today, the developers of proposed Columbus Center are scheduled to hold their 109th meeting with community groups or public officials in less than two years.

City officials hail the process as one in which neighbors and other interested parties have virtually become the designers of the $400 million mixed-use addition to the South End, set above the gaping channel cut by the Massachusetts Turnpike extension and railroad track beds. "It's almost a model process," said Matt Kiefer, a lawyer with Goulston & Storrs, which represents Columbus Center's development team, Cassin/Winn Associates and Winn Development Co. "The developer was really patient and shared lots of financial information. He spent a lot of money. He's almost set a new standard."

But Ned Flaherty, a computer consultant who owns a home on Clarendon Street, between two of the three Columbus Center air-rights development parcels, and some others in the South End strongly disagree.

"The process is illegal, and the proposal is unacceptable. This is all just for show, to make people feel like there's a public process," Flaherty said. "They have not yielded on anything in terms of the impact of anything they want to do or they're going to do."


Ned, you had your heels dug in well over 5 years ago...even after the Columbus Center proposal was changed/downsized several times over the previous years before this newspaper article was printed. You seem to have been against this project from the beginning and nothing that the developers or the city did, short of abandoning this project, would satisfy you. Just a quick question, would the views from your home have changed if CC was built?
 
Re: Columbus Center

It doesn't sounds like Ned was "against" anything ... he was reacting as a realist. There are so many projects around the country that try to raise community awareness and get citizens involved ... but I agree that's its "all just for show".

People who fund the project, along with city officials, are the ones who ultimately make the decisions. Unfortunately for us, Boston city officials fear anything that threatens their comfort zone. Once developers realize this, the project flow slows down dramatically ... and in this case ... comes to a screeching halt.

It's just looking at the bigger picture...
 
Re: Columbus Center

Hello, Beton Brut.

I?m only familiar with UFP air pollution sources along the I-90 & I-93 transportation corridors (motor vehicles and diesel trains), and hadn?t considered UFP air pollution from planes. Planes over the South End are way too high to cause any UFP impact.

The toxic zone is very roughly about 800 feet, and I doubt anyone lives that close to constantly operating jet plane engines. East Boston residents within 800 feet of I-93 are probably suffering much more UFP exposure from the highway than from the airport.

I don?t have any opinions about Logan?s Centerfield Taxiway, and was not involved in the public processes for it, although I support the anti-noise efforts.

Every public health official knows about UFP. A few organizations that might help to you and your neighbors with UFP air pollution:
■ NECAUM (www.nescaum.org)
■ CATF (www.catf.us)
■ Environment Massachusetts (www.environmentmassachusetts.org)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Atlantaden,

Your questions suggest that you are one of the people who doesn?t have the proposal, didn?t attend the hearings, didn?t review the impact reports, hasn?t read the lease, and never saw the public subsidy applications. Had you taken care of those steps, you would already know that my positions are neither as superficial nor as obstinate as your words (?digging in heels?) suggest. In reply to your post . . .

I object to failures in public process as soon as they?re discovered, and relent as soon as they?re corrected. So, to clarify:

In 1997, I objected to the no-bid deal.
By 2000, I began objecting to the no-financial disclosure deal.
By 2001, I began objecting to the developer owning most seats on the Mayor?s Committee.
By 2002, I began objecting to the growing list of master plan violations.
By 2005, I began objecting to the public subsidies the owners promised they?d never use.
By 2006, I began objecting to the privatization of the public parks.
By 2007, I began objecting to the turnpike?s 14 UFP air pollution vents, 5 of which are at Columbus Center.

You accuse me of being ?against the project?. That is untrue. I object to the proposal, not the project, and for the reasons above. The project could have been fine, if the proposal were legitimate, the violations corrected, and the UFP air pollution managed.

You accused me of being critical ?from the beginning? (like that?s a bad thing) the same way that others accused me of being critical ?right in the middle of a review? (like that?s a bad thing) and another accused me of surfacing only ?just as the project was killed? (like that?s a bad thing). The notion that it?s never an appropriate time to criticize is expected from cheer-leaders, but even the most biased advocate should realize that a criticism?s validity doesn?t depend upon its place along the time line, but rather, on the quality of the comment.

You wrote that nothing anyone could do would satisfy me. That is untrue. The 7 issues above could be resolved, and I would be satisfied on each of those points. The owners have been re-proposing every few months for 13 years, so they may eventually resolve their problems and publish a proposal that works.

You wrote that the proposal was ?downsized? several times. That is untrue. Re-read your materials, and you?ll see that it changes frequently, but only to grow, never to shrink.

Square Feet (document, date)
0,713,000 (Sole-bidder proposal, 28 January 1997)
1,321,120 (Draft Impact Report, 21 November 2002)
1,326,566 (Final Impact Report, 15 May 2003)
1,450,000 (Public Subsidy Request, 12 December 2006)
1,464,400 (Public Subsidy Request, 2 May 2007)
1,467,600 (Public Subsidy Request, 13 June 2007)

None of my written or verbal testimony was ever about views, because those would change little if the proposed Columbus Center were built. Even if they changed a lot, that?s relatively unimportant.

I have always focused on the critical failures: e.g., competitive bidding, financial disclosure, master plan compliance, public subsidies, the 7 exposed rail lanes, UFP air pollution.
 
Re: Columbus Center

jass said:
If Paris (and many others) can run electrified double-deckers in very old tunnels and on all lines, I dont see why Amtrak can't.

Unless Amtrak is run by even slower people than we think, the wire had to have been installed to allow full size trains. I understand that perhaps theres a 100 year old low clearance tunnel or two in Connecticut which has lower wiring, but this should be very local issues.
Click to expand...

Jass, the main problem tunnels are in Baltimore. Those tunnels were constructed long before there were double deck passenger cars. I can't recall the cost to bore new tunnels, I believe it is between $500 million and $1 billion. AMTRAK uses doubledeck cars (Superliners) on its long-distance trains in the South, Midwest, and West; these have extra height because these are sleeping cars. A normal full size train for AMTRAK is a single deck passenger car.

AMTRAK has zero interest in running double deck sleeping cars between Boston and New York. (Because of the yachting community in Connecticut, AMTRAK is limited in how many trains it can run every day between Boston and New Haven along the shoreline route. The limit is basically the frequency that AMTRAK currently operates.)

As Ron points out, the MBTA has shown little interest in substituting electric motors for diesels on trains it runs along the track it shares with AMTRAK to Attleboro and Providence. As there are other MBTA routes traversing Back Bay that are not electrified, these routes would still require diesels.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I suspect the real deal-breaker for Ned Flaherty is the UFP, which are already being emitted every day and night outside his residence. He wants whomever develops Columbus Center to collect and scrub those UFPs so they no longer pollute the air next to where he lives. In a way, anyone who looks at the black soot that now fouls the south wall of the bus terminal of South Station knows what the MBTA diesels are doing can empathize, BUT:

Why should it be the developer's responsibility and the developer's cost to deck over the railroad tracks, and operate scrubbers to take UFP and other pollutants out of the air from near Ned Flaherty's residence. Why should not the MBTA bear this construction and operational cost for decking these tracks, and the pollution control equipment?
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

if it is affecting him much, he should sue the mbta. seriously, make it a class action.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Sigh.

For the record, I'm not affiliated with the developers or the BRA or any union or contractor or supplier or other entity that would profit from whether CC is built or not. As best I can recall, I didn't even eat any of the cookies served at the meetings.

I'm just sad that this opportunity to cover the Pike has apparently been lost.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I don't want to get into anyone's wacky conspiracy theories about the Columbus Center, but I would like to get a debate going about the public involvement process.

Personally, I think a lot of blame for the failure of many projects in Boston has to be laid at the feet of the BRA and its complete failure as an agency. In most bureaucratic rule making, the agency in question makes a decision or proposal, notifies all involved stakeholders, accepts comments, and puts forward a final decision or proposal reflecting those comments. The agency has leeway as to what degree they will be influenced by the comments, but has to justify their final decision to their superiors (Congress, the Mayor, etc), and has to face a potential court challenge from commentors. This process allows the professionals in the agency to base decisions and proposals on academic/scientific information, while at the same time allowing for democratic involvement. The reason I blame the BRA for the failure of the Columbus Center and other projects is that it has completely abandoned this processes. Successful decision making, especially in an urban development context needs to involve as many people as possible and be short and sweet. As it currently operates, the BRA fails as a bureaucracy in three ways: first, it involves only a small percentage of citizens who generally represent only one point of view; second, it doesn't value academic knowledge in the least; and third, it drags out the entire decision making process. I think we need to take a hard look at how this agency operates and how we might fix it. First off, it's clear that the BRA needs to revisit the way it forces projects to take comments and revise ad nauseum. Second, it's clear that the BRA needs to revisit the way it involves citizens.

Personally, I think debating the Flahreties and Mattisons of the world is pointless; they feel one way, everyone else feels another, and that's just fine. The real question becomes, how do we construct a decision making process in which we get, not only what the majority of us would like, but also what would be the most beneficial to the city. As it stands, nobody's happy and we're left with nothing to stand for it.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I am not an architect, not associated with or paid by any developer or government agency, and am not a community activist. My only interest in Columbus Center is as a Boston taxpayer and a Massachusetts taxpayer.
I have watched this project since it was first proposed, attended most of the public meetings, read most of the newspaper articles, and have been following this forum. I am posting because there are a few things that need to be said.

1. Ned Flaherty did not just ?surface on this board as the project was killed,? as one poster claims. He started posting last August, when the project was in one of its many ?we?re starting any day now? phases. No one could blame him for going silent for awhile, especially after remarks like the one that he and Shirley Kressel should jump off a bridge and be run over (ManchurianBarbarian, 8/26/07). Just how old are you folks, anyway?

Flaherty expresses his points well, and backs them up with verifiable sources, whereas his attackers give little or no evidence for their opinions, and often sink to name-calling (?poison ivy?) and irrelevance (Flaherty?s sleep schedule). When one poster asked, ?Who exactly is he?? Flaherty identified himself and gave reasonable credentials. My question for all his attackers with anonymous pen names is, ?Who exactly are YOU??

2. Credibility fades when I see posts from people criticizing a proposal they haven?t read and complaining about hearings they never attended. I?ve gone to public meetings, bought public records, read newspapers, and looked up things up on-line, but I don?t take strident opinions on materials I?ve never seen and am not familiar with.

3. I was at the meeting when Shirley Kressel asked about seeking public subsidies, and developer Roger Cassin replied ?not a penny.? Citizens Advisory Committee Member Mark Merante then asked if the excess density could be reduced and ?bought back? with public subsidies. BRA Director Randi Lathrop then grabbed the microphone and interrupted, ?The city?s broke, the state?s broke, there?s no money.?

Columbus Center could have already been built by now if the developers just built the darned thing as it was proposed and approved (subsidy-free) back in 2003, instead of secretly seeking the subsidies they promised they?d never use. More reasonable and competent developers have started and completed lots of public processes and projects since 2003.

4. The bottom line for me and most citizens is that, as taxpayers, we object to our tax dollars funding a 100% privately owned project. We object to having to fund the UFP air pollution which causes illnesses that can kill us and our loved ones. Whether it?s owned by Winn, California, or the estate of Elvis Presley is not the issue. The issue is that it?s privately owned, not publicly owned, and I don?t want my tax dollars paying for it and the developer's profits, no matter how pretty the parks are.

5. Stellarfun asked why the developer should be responsible for cleaning the air pollution. The answer is because Columbus Center, with its vents, will concentrate the existing air pollution, thus increasing its potency and deadliness exponentially, and blast it full force into the community. I might agree with stellarfun if the pollution would be left unchanged, but this is not the case with this project. It would also be OK if the Turnpike Authority cleaned up the pollution, since the MTA is a profit-sharing business partner in Columbus Center. But the MTA can?t even meet its own payroll, is $2 billion in debt, and refuses to address this issue, leaving its business partners, CALPers/Winn, holding the bag.

An interesting irony is that there are environmental regulations in California that would prohibit building this project there. California, therefore, is building it here, and trying to get Massachusetts taxpayers to pay for its costs and boost its profits. One thing I disagree with Ned Flaherty about is whether or not CALpers is ?sleazy.? In my opinion, any organization that knowingly builds something in another state that is prohibited in its home state because it harms public health is more than just ?sleazy.? It?s criminal.

6. As far as ?knitting the neighborhood together? goes, another tower almost as tall as the Hancock doesn?t knit together anything. The neighborhoods are already knitted together by a latticework of main streets and cross streets, none of which are changing. No streets are being added, because the knitting is already done. All that?s proposed is to put big buildings up on small parcels, which may be fine, but this in itself doesn?t knit anything together. It would, in fact, separate the neighborhoods even more than they are now. Does the Prudential Center ?knit? the Back Bay to the Fenway? I don?t think so.

7. Most non-architect citizens DO NOT WANT this project as it was proposed. We DO want the transportation corridor developed and the Turnpike covered, but we need to have a real public process to do this. This project needs to be bid for competitively. All proposals need to be thoroughly reviewed and the choice should be for the best proposal. There needs to be a truly representative and democratically elected advisory committee, with no conflicts of interest. There needs to be full financial disclosure and compliance with zoning and environmental codes. There needs to be compliance with the Turnpike Master Plan, or truly valid reasons for non-compliance that can be substantiated with independent audits to sustantiate them.

Why do we even have rules, codes and plans anyway, if developers can just give a politician some money in exchange for exclusive, guaranteed non-competitive rights to a property, and carte blanche to make up their own rules as they go along? How do you think Winn got the exclusive rights for these parcels in the first place? The following excerpt is from a front-page Boston Globe article dated 11/19/2000 entitled ?State-Tied Firms Bankrolled Tax Cut.? I rest my case.

Take, for example, Arthur Winn, a major developer and owner of the Bostonian Hotel, who contributed $10,000 to the Tax Rollback Committee on Sept. 29, according to campaign finance records.

Just three days after the donation, the Cellucci-controlled Massachusetts Turnpike Authority agreed that Winn Development Co. would not need to compete with other developers for the right to build a hotel and housing complex over the turnpike at Columbus Avenue.

In a letter outlining its position, turnpike chairman Andrew Natsios said the decision to award Winn the project without a bid was due to his "track record as a developer" and that his proposal had a relatively low traffic impact.

Winn did not return calls seeking comment.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Q-62. Who should pay to clean UFP air pollution?
A-62. In every large development project, the profiteers fund the mitigation for the harm that their project causes.

There is no method for filtering air pollution from open highways/railways, so prior to air rights development, mitigation isn?t possible; however, air rights development creates tunnels which contain that pollution, with exhaust vents that concentrate it ten-fold over existing rates. Thus, air rights development simultaneously creates both the problem (the ten-fold increase in exposure) and the solution (the opportunity to cleanse all pollution via each vent).

In the case of California?s Columbus Center, the main profiteers include the 3 owners of the transportation corridor as landlords, and the developer as tenant:

■ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (rent-collecting landlord)
■ Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (rent-collecting landlord)
■ CSX freight railroad (rent-collecting landlord)
■ CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC (developer/tenant)

It does not matter precisely how much cash each of the 4 profiteers allocates toward the mitigation that becomes necessary because of the public health harm that their venture causes. All that matters is that the mitigation occurs. It can be paid for by whatever cost-sharing formula the 4 profiteers choose.
 
Re: Columbus Center

TedG said:
6. As far as ?knitting the neighborhood together? goes, another tower almost as tall as the Hancock doesn?t knit together anything. The neighborhoods are already knitted together by a latticework of main streets and cross streets, none of which are changing. No streets are being added, because the knitting is already done. All that?s proposed is to put big buildings up on small parcels, which may be fine, but this in itself doesn?t knit anything together. It would, in fact, separate the neighborhoods even more than they are now. Does the Prudential Center ?knit? the Back Bay to the Fenway? I don?t think so.

7. Most non-architect citizens DO NOT WANT this project as it was proposed. We DO want the transportation corridor developed and the Turnpike covered, but we need to have a real public process to do this. This project needs to be bid for competitively. All proposals need to be thoroughly reviewed and the choice should be for the best proposal. There needs to be a truly representative and democratically elected advisory committee, with no conflicts of interest. There needs to be full financial disclosure and compliance with zoning and environmental codes. There needs to be compliance with the Turnpike Master Plan, or truly valid reasons for non-compliance that can be substantiated with independent audits to sustantiate them.

Why do we even have rules, codes and plans anyway, if developers can just give a politician some money in exchange for exclusive, guaranteed non-competitive rights to a property, and carte blanche to make up their own rules as they go along? How do you think Winn got the exclusive rights for these parcels in the first place? The following excerpt is from a front-page Boston Globe article dated 11/19/2000 entitled ?State-Tied Firms Bankrolled Tax Cut.? I rest my case.
Click to expand...

This, and not Government Center, I think is the true crime of Ed Logue.

Now when we discuss urban design and urban design professionals, you never hear the name Haussmann mentioned. It's Ed Logue, Robert Moses and the such. People no longer trust the people who have dedicated their life to the craft.

They think they can do better. Design by committee.

Unless this changes we may never see good urban design in this city again.

No wonder ablarc left us. I don't blame him.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I'm sure lots of people were displaced by Hausemann, too. You can't plow wide boulevards through dense fabric without displacing people. We just don't remember them, a century and a half later.
 
Re: Columbus Center

But we still have Hausemann's Paris. Which is my point.
 
Re: Columbus Center

"6. As far as ?knitting the neighborhood together? goes, another tower almost as tall as the Hancock doesn?t knit together anything. The neighborhoods are already knitted together by a latticework of main streets and cross streets, none of which are changing. "


For what it's worth, I live on Chandler Street, less than a block away from the Berkeley Street overpass. To suggest that the connections between the Back Bay and the South End would be harmed or diminished is frankly absurd. To walk between Chandler and Columbus on Berkeley street is to traverse a roaring, wind tunnel that is essentially a litter strewn no-man's land. A mixed use development with street level retail and residential entrances would create a vasty more humane and inviting streetscape.

As for the Prudential Center...YES, I think it is phenomenally better than the trainyard that it replaced.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Statler...your comment about the legacy of Ed Logue and Robert Moses is dead on. Design by Committee and the infallability of neighborhood groups is the standard of our era.
 
Re: Columbus Center

sidewalks said:
"6. As far as ?knitting the neighborhood together? goes, another tower almost as tall as the Hancock doesn?t knit together anything. The neighborhoods are already knitted together by a latticework of main streets and cross streets, none of which are changing. "


For what it's worth, I live on Chandler Street, less than a block away from the Berkeley Street overpass. To suggest that the connections between the Back Bay and the South End would be harmed or diminished is frankly absurd. To walk between Chandler and Columbus on Berkeley street is to traverse a roaring, wind tunnel that is essentially a litter strewn no-man's land. A mixed use development with street level retail and residential entrances would create a vasty more humane and inviting streetscape.

As for the Prudential Center...YES, I think it is phenomenally better than the trainyard that it replaced.
Click to expand...

If you think another skyscraper is going to reduce the amount of wind tunnel you have to walk through, you obviously have never walked past the John Hancock tower.
 
Re: Columbus Center

^^ Is the John Hancock tower an asset or liability to the city?
 
Re: Columbus Center

It's an asset, but it sure doesn't make a walk down St. James Avenue more pleasant!
 
Re: Columbus Center

Exactly. It a liability to those who walk near but an asset to the city overall.

Sort of a metaphor for this entire thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top