Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

What it points out, though, is that people shouldn't argue for Columbus Center on the grounds that it will make this part of the city more walkable, or that it will 'knit together' anything that isn't already well-knit.

I like the Prudential Center (now, after its many revisions and expansions), but I wouldn't say that it ties the Back Bay to the South End especially well. If that were its goal from the beginning, it would look somewhat different now.
 
Re: Columbus Center

^^ Columbus Center doesn't include any street level retail?
 
Re: Columbus Center

I did not say that the Hancock Tower was not an asset to the city. I was simply responding to the comment made by sidewalks that the empty turnpike now was windy to walk past and the suggestion that the Columbus Center tower would somehow make it less windy.

This is yet another example of people jumping to defend this project by using logic that makes absolutely no sense.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Can someone post a picture of what this scene looks like today?

columbuscenter3ug6.jpg
 
Re: Columbus Center

TedG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting you bring this up, Ted.

Are the wind patterns in this area a mitigating, exacerbating, or neutral influence on the concentration of UFPs that Ned is concerned about? I'd wager that an extensive study must have been done, considering UFP concentrations "present state" and "post-project" and that wind patterns would have be one of the variables.

Ned, can you put some context around this?
 
Re: Columbus Center

It is disingenuous to point to the skyscraper that creates the most adverse wind conditions in the city. Skyscrapers today are designed specifically to avoid such negative impacts. I would wager my next week's pay that the wind created by Columbus Center would not be anywhere near as problematic as that which occurs around the Hancock Tower.

And Ron, I disagree that this project will not knit the city together or make it more walkable. I would much prefer walking past townhouses and retail establishments than a steel fence and an eight lane highway.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Parcel 17 was to include a linear park covering the train tracks, which would allow pedestrians to walk directly from Columbus to Berkeley. I'm not too familiar with this part of the South End, but a quick look at Google Street View seems to indicate this isn't currently possible.
 
Re: Columbus Center

One more thing I need to get off my chest:

I?ve read several posts here that suggest that community involvement in a development project is a ?bad? thing because the neighbors aren?t as knowledgeable as the developers about the things that go into building a development.

I feel this this sentiment is insulting. I?m not sure where you folks live, but I?d be willing to wager that if a money-bags developer came into YOUR community and forced a project down YOUR throat , telling you that you had no say in it because ?we know much better than you do what?s good for you,? you would feel differently. I?m sure that at that moment you would stop seeing this issue from the perspective of an architect and/or developer who thinks big buildings are cool and start seeing it from the perspective of a concerned citizen with rights.

It is NOT a bad thing that the citizens should have a say into what happens in their community. It is a NECESSARY thing as long as this country is still the United States of America. Those who don?t live near a development are free to come and go as they please. Those who live near it, however, don?t have that option. For the record, I am not a resident of the South End. I live in Jamaica Plain, not close enough to be affected by Columbus Center personally, but close enough in spirit to every resident of the South End, Back Bay and Bay Village who will have to live with this project for the rest of their lives. No one should every try to deny these people the right to have a say into what happens to their homes and their neighborhood.

People have attacked Ned Flaherty saying that he?s opposed to this project because he lives next door to it. Whether that is or is not the case is not the point. The point is that if it were being built next door to YOU, wouldn?t you want to have a say in it, or would you just trust the development team because, after all, they know much better than YOU what you need.

Thank you all very much for reading and considering some of the ideas I have posted.
 
Re: Columbus Center

It's not a bad thing that citizens have input. What I have a problem with is those citizens that think they should have the only say, that developers should build according to thier needs, wants or opinions. Views from their condos or shadows are not vaild issues. Environmental issues are.
 
Re: Columbus Center

If the purpose of the project is to knit disconnected pieces of the city together, I'd suggest putting it near Ruggles station rather than here. That neighborhood needs it a lot more than the Back Bay or South End.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Cojapo said:
It's not a bad thing that citizens have input. What I have a problem with is those citizens that think they should have the only say, that developers should build according to thier needs, wants or opinions. Views from their condos or shadows are not vaild issues. Environmental issues are.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Again, I live a block away from the project, but that is besides the point. Our problem with the current situation is that an anti-urbanist, car-oriented culture has predominated in this country for the past 75 years. I'm sorry if you find this insulting, but most Americans don't recognize good urban design because they've been conditioned to dislike it. They've been conditioned to value squat, low density development with maximum green space. Time after time, these attitudes diminish the quality of the developement in our city and interminably delay worthwhile projects. Call me an elitist, but that's my viewpoint.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I feel this this sentiment is insulting. I?m not sure where you folks live, but I?d be willing to wager that if a money-bags developer came into YOUR community and forced a project down YOUR throat , telling you that you had no say in it because ?we know much better than you do what?s good for you,? you would feel differently. I?m sure that at that moment you would stop seeing this issue from the perspective of an architect and/or developer who thinks big buildings are cool and start seeing it from the perspective of a concerned citizen with rights.
Click to expand...

I've said this before in this thread and I'll say it again.

This is not about what is good for YOU. It is about what is good for the CITY AS A WHOLE. You are only a temporary guest of the city. The city will outlast you. I promise.

This is why we have such poor urban design in this city. Everyone involved is too selfish. The developers want too much money and neighborhood groups want too many 'amenities', most of which are suburban in nature. You want open space and peace and quite? Fine. Move to Waltham. Don't try to move Waltham to the city. Noise, density, traffic and shadows are all part of city life. If you are so opposed to these things why do you chose to live here?
I completely agree with Ned that the environmental issues should be resolved. It is an important issue that affects the city as a whole. But personally I don't care who pays for them. The developer, the taxpayer, the tooth fairy. It doesn't matter, someone pony up the cash. Stop fighting about it and get it done.

Edit: and once again sidewalks get the point across way better then myself.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ron, I'm sorry but these developers arent playing with erector sets. They can't just move this project from Clarendon to Ruggles. Let's stay within the realm of the real world...the developer has spent $50 million permitting a project on this site, with engineering design and program that reflects this part of the city. Aside from the fact that the economics of the project would be even worse on Ruggles Street, nothing else would transfer either.
 
Re: Columbus Center

statler said:
I've said this before in this thread and I'll say it again.

This is not about what is good for YOU. It is about what is good for the CITY AS A WHOLE. You are only a temporary guest of the city. The city will outlast you. I promise.

This is why we have such poor urban design in this city. Everyone involved is too selfish. The developers want too much money and neighborhood groups want too many 'amenities', most of which are suburban in nature. You want open space and peace and quite? Fine. Move to Waltham. Don't try to move Waltham to the city. Noise, density, traffic and shadows are all part of city life. If you are so opposed to these things why do you chose to live here?
I completely agree with Ned that the environmental issues should be resolved. It is an important issue that affects the city as a whole. But personally I don't care who pays for them. The developer, the taxpayer, the tooth fairy. It doesn't matter, someone pony up the cash. Stop fighting about it and get it done.

Edit: and once again sidewalks get the point across way better then myself.
Click to expand...

This post is eerily similar to the comment that Kerry Healey made when she was running for governor that if elderly people can't afford the rising property taxes on the homes they've lived in for their whole lives then they should move.

I won't be posting any more. Thanks and good luck to all.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I'm not seriously suggesting that this project be moved. Just that, if you wanted to rank gaps in the local urban fabric that should be mended, Clarendon and Berkeley streets are pretty minor. Much larger gulfs exist between Cambridge and Charlestown; between the South End and South Boston; between Allston and Cambridge; around Sullivan Square; even between Kenmore Square and Brookline.
 
Re: Columbus Center

TedG said:
This post is eerily similar to the comment that Kerry Healey made when she was running for governor that if elderly people can't afford the rising property taxes on the homes they've lived in for their whole lives then they should move.

I won't be posting any more. Thanks and good luck to all.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that one argument is economically based and the other is taste based.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Good lord. I'm not suggesting that old people be shipped out on icebergs.

I'm merely saying that maybe tolerating a few months of excess noise, a few more people in your neighborhood and a little less open space may be beneficial to the city in the long term.

It's really not a radical suggestion. Sorry if I've offended.
 
Re: Columbus Center

A city should be urban. The suburbs should be suburban. Pick the one that suits you best.
 
Re: Columbus Center

That's a continuum, not a sharp division. Moody Street in Waltham is urban. West Roxbury Parkway is suburban. Jamaica Plain is some of each (which is why I love it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top