Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Electrification of the railroad lines still seems like the real solution to this problem.

Yup. And it's that battle the ABN should be fighting.

Instead, they are working to solve the wrong problem.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

In the quote below, Ned implies that I am already endangering my life as I live on Chandler Street and am thereby ALREADY exposed to harmful pollution. If the pollution threat is ALREADY so pernicious, why does Ned choose to live at 75 Clarendon Street- at a busy interesection where diesel buses idle at the lights, and astride an eight lane highway and a railstation? If the threat were as dire as he contends, I can only imagine that he would move.

"Mr./Ms. Underground, if you understand the above, and explain it to Mr./Ms. Sidewalks ? who today lives in the 1,640-foot toxic zone and is suffering exposure rates already prohibited in California ? you could save a life."

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

I'm going to back up a bit here.

Because Columbus Center remains the most data-intensive proposal Boston has ever seen, there?s little time for studying other projects; however, my core principles remain the same for all projects:

1. First, create a city-wide, publicly prepared master plan and zoning.
2. Require compliance.
3. Conduct only competitive bidding.
4. Require full financial disclosure using government accounting standards.
5. Seat only democratically nominated members to review committees.
6. Never use public subsidies to pay for private costs and profits.

This will ensure that no great urban space is ever created in this city again.

None of these 'safeguards' were in place when Beacon Hill was built. None of this was in place when the Back Bay was built. None of this was in place when the North End was built. Can you image this city without them?
Can you name a single great urban space created under these conditions?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Obviously the Pike is an important thruway and we can't just shut it down, but in a way we are making a choice as to what is more important to us as a society, our cars or our urban fabric. . .

Statler,

No one ever suggested shutting down the transportation corridor?s rail lanes or road lanes.

And the notion that some choice must be made ?between? transportation ?or? density is false. Both are technically possible, and compatible alongside each other.

But what?s slowly getting recognized is that California?s Columbus Center proposal poses health risks for its own employees and residents, and everyone nearby. California told the subsidy agencies it would be airtight and clean, but their approved plans show the opposite.

Still undecided is how the four principals (MTA, MBTA, CSX, California) will collectively address the UFP issue. Ignoring it will create 443 expensive, luxury-class condo-tombs, surrounded by far safer homes just several blocks in any direction, so market forces may yet prevail.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

I'm still waiting for somebody to give a citation for a California Air Quality standard for UFP, and for somebody to point to a regulation prohibiting certain activity within a supposed 'UFP toxic zone'.

Sidewalks, exactly. The toxic zone, by Ned's definition, already exists without Columbus Center being built.

I also assume that the table in Ned Flaherty's post supra was not produced by Sverdup Parsons -- the table title gives it away. The map showing the so-called toxic zones is acknowledged to be an adaption, meaning that it is not original to any of the studies cited, but probably drawn to reflect an individual viewpoint.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Sidewalks asks why I chose to live in the UFP toxic zone, and recommends I just move away.

I moved to the corner of Clarendon & Columbus in 1990, unaware of the UFP toxic zone. It wasn't until 2007 that I learned of the public health risks from existing UFP, and the ten-fold increase posed by all I-90 air rights development.

Every problem on earth can be either acknowledged and addressed, or else run away from and left for others. Last year I chose to work toward a solution, rather than run away without even trying.

Due to the mostly volunteer efforts of me and many others, people are becoming much more informed.

To answer your question, if all transportation corridor neighborhoods become aware of UFP air pollution, and then choose to accept the unnecessary ten-fold increase instead of the corrective solution, then I would move a few blocks north or south to get out of the toxic zone. Happily, however, that won't be necessary, because it doesn't appear that any community or elected representative is going to choose toxicity over health.

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

I'm going to back up a bit here.



This will ensure that no great urban space is ever created in this city again.

None of these 'safeguards' were in place when Beacon Hill was built. None of this was in place when the Back Bay was built. None of this was in place when the North End was built. Can you image this city without them?
Can you name a single great urban space created under these conditions?

The lack of these conditions is also the reason we no longer have a West End and Scollay Square. The South End, also, was slated to be demolished and replaced with projects in the 1960s. It is only due to the efforts of community leaders of the day like the late Arthur Howe that we still have a South End today.

Yes, I CAN imagine this city without Beacon Hill and the North End. All I have to do is look at Govenment Center, where Scollay Square used to be, and Charles River Park, where the West End used to be, and imagine similar eyesores (in comparison to what was once there) in place of the neighborhoods you just mentioned.

You can bash Shirley Kressel and Ned Flaherty all you want, but without community leaders like them (and every Boston neighborhood has their own, thankfully), your vision of Boston without Beacon Hill or the North End...or even the Public Garden...would most likely be a reality by now. Be very careful about what you wish for; you might just get it.

Come to think of it, Bay Village would be a great place for a large development...it's right next to the theater district, restaurants and public transportation. Who needs dinky little three to four story rowhouses anyway? This is the CITY, man.....what we need here are HOTELS!

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

I think there are two issues here:

1) How can we decrease UFP?
2) Should we build housing in an area known to have a lot of UFP?

But if we build a high density city, people will reduce their use of automobiles. Doesn't this address both of the above issues in one fell swoop? If high density housing was built over the pike, wouldn't that reduce automobile use in that area and reduce UFPs in that area? I don't see how building the Columbus Center and other similar projects and reducing UFPs are mutually exclusive. Personally, I think that they are directly linked.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Yes, I CAN imagine this city without Beacon Hill and the North End. All I have to do is look at Govenment Center (where Scollay Square used to be) and Charles River Park (where the West End used to be) and imagine similar eyesores (in comparison to what was once there) in place of the neighborhoods you just mentioned.

Yes, I've addressed all this in my 'crimes of Ed Logue' post. And do you know why City Hall plaza was built the way it was built? Open space. Yup. The people were fleeing the city to the burbs for more 'open space', so in order to try to keep people in the city Scollay Sq and the West End was destroyed and City Hall Plaza and Charles River Park were created.

So what do groups like ABN always fight for? The restoration of intimate spaces with narrow streets and high desisty? More spaces like Hanover St in the North End? Recreating the old Scollay Sq? Nope, none of that. What do they want? More open space and lots of it. We've learned nothing in fifty years.

And honestly I'd be more sympathetic if the ABN was doing everything in it power to stop the demolition of the SC&L buildings,which of course was original mission of these types of groups.

But guess what, I've searched the ABN site and and not only can I not find a single reference to the SC&L buildings but I find a whole section arguing against turning City Hall Plaza into private property. You know, like it was before the government stole it? Back when it was Sculley Sq, a true urban area. Even though it was filled will private buildings it was a real public space. Now it's just a wasteland. But because it's a public wasteland we shouldn't build on it. Despite knowing for a fact that private enterprise made the area a better space.

Groups like ABN are fighting the wrong battles. Preserve what should be preserved. Help build what should be built. The gaping hole over the Mass Pike doesn't need to be protected. The SC&L buildings do.

We, as a civilization, have been building cities for thousands of years. We know how it is done. A bad ten year stretch does warrant a whole new system of city building. We've gone from bad to worse. We've gone mouse hunting with a missile launcher.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

Sidewalks asks why I chose to live in the UFP toxic zone, and recommends I just move away.

I moved to the corner of Clarendon & Columbus in 1990, unaware of the UFP toxic zone. It wasn't until 2007 that I learned of the public health risks from existing UFP, and the ten-fold increase posed by all I-90 air rights development.

Every problem on earth can be either acknowledged and addressed, or else run away from and left for others. Last year I chose to work toward a solution, rather than run away without even trying.

Due to the mostly volunteer efforts of me and many others, people are becoming much more informed.

To answer your question, if all transportation corridor neighborhoods become aware of UFP air pollution, and then choose to accept the unnecessary ten-fold increase instead of the corrective solution, then I would move a few blocks north or south to get out of the toxic zone. Happily, however, that won't be necessary, because it doesn't appear that any community or elected representative is going to choose toxicity over health.

I have many good arguements but what you are wishing is that the city become less of a city. Air pollution is an unavoidable consequence while living in a city. Even with filters, there is still going to be a lot of pollution in a city. Look at all the major cities in the US. Where do you find one that doesn't have heavy pollution? I know that people would rather choose health over toxicity. That's the obvious choice. But while living in a city, this is a problem that people will encounter while traveling to work, going to school, etc. It's all over the city. Until we develop some technology that can significantly reduce pollution, you are going to encounter it on a daily basis whether you live near an area of high pollution or not because you have to travel through the city to work. But I guess toxicity is balance by the amenities provided by a city. Are community representatives going to choose health over city amenities?

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

Statler, you make some excellent points; thank you very much for the info. Open spaces are important, but not if they are wastelands of brick like Government Center. I guess what I said about getting what you wish for is true in this instance.

As far as the ABN fighting the wrong battles, I don't know enough about that to comment, but isn't there any way that Boston citizens can appeal to this organization about issues that they feel are important and that should be taken on by ABN? How does ABN decide what is important and what is not and they will take on and what they won't? Are there any ABN members here who can answer these questions?

I am also very upset about the SC&L building and I can't understand why nobody (that I know of anyway) is trying to save this historic art-deco building, and I was upset when the historic Gaeity Theater on Washington Street was unable to be saved. Shirley Kressel and other citizens tried to save this building, but they were unsuccessful and now we have a big hole there.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

As far as the ABN fighting the wrong battles, I don't know enough about that to comment, but isn't there any way that Boston citizens can appeal to this organization about issues that they feel are important and that should be taken on by ABN? How does ABN decide what is important and what is not and they will take on and what they won't?

In theory, yes. According to their website any Boston resident can join one of their member organizations. However, I would imagine there would be quite a bit of resistance if one were to go against the tide on issues such as open space, shadows, set backs and density. God help you if side with a developer on any given issue. But if you get enough people who share your point of view it does seem to be a democratic institution so it should be possible.

And to be fair, I was too harsh on my earlier assessment of ABN. They have a lot of writing on their site that I agree with and would support. They are still doing some good work for the city. I just wish they would devote more of their resources to those areas, but as I said it's a democratic institution, so...

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

ABN isn't a government agency; they are under no obligation to listen to anyone in particular. They may make decisions democratically amongst their members, but if someone showed up at a meeting talking about increasing density, I'm pretty sure that meeting would be their first and last.

 

[kmp1284]

Re: Columbus Center

I do not claim to be an expert on UFP. I only know as much about it as has been already posted on the board. I do know, however, that other states, including California, have acknowledged that it is real important enough to establish environmental regulations prohibiting projects that create it or add to it.

So basically what you're saying is that the centerpiece of your argument against this project is derived strictly from the statements of lay people none of whom have any medical credentials? Obviously I knew this whole UFP things was complete bull from the start but I figured if you were going to fabricate an argument based on supposed health effects you would have come up with one source from a real MD for all of us dental school flunk out architects and pro-growth heathens to gawk at. I've never had a great tolerance for stupidity, but making up a health condition or at least greatly exaggerating one's impact to help keep your buddy's view is completely beyond the pale.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned,

Moving a few blocks away would not preclude your right or ability to inveigh against UFP contamination. That said, let's assume for a second that Columbus Center is defeated. You will have won your fight. But with the end of that battle, it would only seem sensible that you would choose to live in a place where there is less UFP pollution. If this problem is as poisonous as you suggest it would seem willfully negligent, if not suicidal, to stay on the corner of Clarendon and Columbus.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

On UFPs, density, and what to cure when . . .

Hello, Underground. I believe we agree.

Yes, UFP can be managed using existing technology.
Yes, housing can be built in UFP zones if that technology is applied.
No, nothing should be built in a toxic UFP zone without removing the toxicity.
No, building Columbus Center and eliminating UFPs are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, they are linked (the first pays for the second).

Hello, DarkFenX:

I think you missed the distinction I?ve been stressing.

It?s important to split all air pollution into conventional pollutants versus the far more deadly ? and economically treatable ? UFP pollutants. General air pollution will continue for some years, so the best everyone can do is work to ensure and hasten its reduction. But UFP is curable today, so there?s no excuse for not addressing it right now.

 

[InTheHood]

Re: Columbus Center

Amen to Statler and Amen to Seamus McFly.

If you think that reading this thread is water torture, you should have attended the endless stream of Columbus Center meetings (the ones that were apparently the developer's fault). A majority of the crowd at most of the meetings that I attended were actually in favor of CC. And if you polled the area at large, you'd find broad general support and a certain amount of indifference. But there is no doubt that the opponents were much more passionate, as is always the case in these fights. Little children brought in to hold picket signs with "35 floors is too high." Speakers cut off and shouted down. Bananas. And the same individuals grabbing the microphone every time. The objections have evolved and multiplied (we didn't hear much about particulates then) but the tone and the conclusion is the same.

Incidentally, I live in one of the "red zones" and I'm not worried about dying in the killing fields if a miracle occurs and Columbus Center gets built.

What I'd like to see? A group of responsible citizens for sensible urban development, committed to pushing opinions, writing letters, and helping to slug it out in public meetings across the city ... admittedly a massive and frustrating chore. This group wouldn't be pro-development at all costs ... the SC&L fight is a good example. But it would take up the cause of what really matters - streetscape, materials, density, urbanity, transit orientation - and the reality that economic trade-offs must be made for the good of the city as a whole.

What was shocking in the CC meetings was how LITTLE attention was given to the urban details that most of us who post on this board care about - there wasn't any uproar about precast panels. In my perfect world, this organization - let's call it the Alliance for Urbanity - would be populated by long-standing members of this forum, ones who care about every development and follow every thread. Make no mistake about it, this would be real work and would involve real frustration. And I'm sure we couldn't come to a common point of view on every aspect of every development (For example, I'm sure many of us would oppose public subsidy of Columbus Center, irrespective of its urban merits). But I'm sick of the same predictable opposition from the same group of self-appointed cranks in each neighborhood quoted in the Globe and Herald. We should self-appoint ourselves.

We can't blame Ned for his passion. And if he cherrypicks and twists data and selects arguments based on his audience, well, that's good lawyering. Up to us to get off our duffs and into the fray - not on this project, which appears dead, but on others where we might matter, because there are a few Neds next door to every project site. I sense that most all of us do this, selectively - I just wish we could to this in a more organized fashion.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

What is the proposed solution to the UFP problem? Are there filters that can be installed in exhaust systems, and are these filters in place in the Big Dig vents?

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

And the notion that some choice must be made ?between? transportation ?or? density is false. Both are technically possible, and compatible alongside each other.

That is good to to know. Next question: how and who should pay for it?
On one hand, the problem was created by the development (or exaggerated at least) so it would seem the developer should pay. On the other hand, the government created the corridor and that is the ultimate source of the pollution, plus covering the Pike still constitutes a public benefit in and of itself, so it seems reasonable that the cost gets shifted to the taxpayer.

Still undecided is how the four principals (MTA, MBTA, CSX, California) will collectively address the UFP issue.

And what is your organization doing to facilitate this process? I believe helping to resolve this would be the best use of your resources.

Ignoring it will create 443 expensive, luxury-class condo-tombs, surrounded by far safer homes just several blocks in any direction, so market forces may yet prevail.

Pure, unadulterated FUD.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Q-67. What are California?s latest recommendations and laws affecting UFP?

A-67. CEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency) operates CARB (California Air Resources Board) department, the state?s omnibus air pollution control agency. In its mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective, economical reduction of air pollutants, CARB prepares the air plans required by state and federal law, and it enforces local Air District compliance.

Here?s what California state government has done so far (more is expected). CARB adopted its recommendations on 28 April 2005, and published them in its CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook.

■ The outermost edge of urban roads carrying 100,000 or more vehicles per day should be at least 500 feet away from new residential communities, daycare centers, parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, schools, nursing homes, and hospitals which are likely to be used by children, the elderly, or those with pre-existing serious health problems.
California?s Columbus Center is 0 feet from the interstate, but its daycare center is for children, its luxury condominiums are targeted to the empty-nest age group, and its affordable homes are targeted to lower income families with children.

■ Recognize the cumulative air pollution impacts that can be created when new housing gets sited without adequate setback from an existing major transportation corridor.
Cumulative impacts were omitted from the proposal for the zero-setback Columbus Center.

■ Consider site-specific project design improvements that can reduce air pollution exposure when siting new land uses.
No design improvements to correct UFP were made to Columbus Center.

■ California State Law SB-352, enacted 2 October 2003, largely prohibits new schools within 500 feet of UFP-producing, multi-lane, restricted-access, high-speed highways.
The usage in Massachusetts (daycare with playground) differs from the usage in California (public schools), but the target population is identical.