Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

The Ellis corporation postdates the Turnpike extension by decades. As with any other corporation, full details and copies of its filings may be found at www.corp.sec.state.ma.us/corp.
Click the "Search Corporate Database" link, then type in "Ellis Neighborhood Association".

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

I love it.

To say, that the "two largest adjacent communities" don't support this project "officially" is so funny, I laughed out loud.

How does a community "officially" do anything?

There is widespread support for this project. There are also plenty of people who are against it. And, according to an unscientific poll taken by South End News, there's at least 10% of the people who "couldn't care less".

Those on Cortes St may be on board for this for simply selfish reasons (not that there's anything wrong with this). They have the most to gain. The plans call for a massive park to be built out their front doors.

Those who live between Clarendon and Berkeley at Columbus will be facing a hotel and condos.

 

[InTheHood]

Re: Columbus Center

The Ellis boundary doesn't date from that far back. It's a gerrymander that no one outside of Ellis voted on, the sole purpose of which seems to be so that Ned can thunder on about how virtually the whole project is in his neighborhood (a ridiculous claim that he made frequently in those water-torture meetings ... at least he's been consistent).

The Pope building on Columbus is the only "neighbor" on the North Side of the Pike whose residents opposed the project pretty consistently, for reasons I think are easy to understand given the impact on views and light in that building. At the meetings, business owners on Stanhope Street spoke loudly in favor.

The opposition to this project has consistently pursued the strategy akin to Rommel's maneuver with tanks at Tripoli ... running in circles to kick up more dust and make their numbers look more numerous, and counting organizations and dubious claims to square footage instead of counting noses. At the meetings, there were many South Enders who spoke in favor ... including some who noted that when 75 Clarendon was first proposed in the '80s, there were NIMBYs who opposed that building as being too tall and out of scale! At the meetings, opinions were pretty evenly divided, and the transcripts will show more positive comments than negatives at the major meetings - which is remarkable, given that opponents of ANY project are always more vocal and engaged than proponents.

Only a minority of residents in any of these neighborhoods participate in neighborhood associations. If you were to conduct a door-to-door survey of Ellis, you'd find a ton of people who aren't opposed to CC.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

You know, InTheHood is right! I had forgotten about that.

Everyone was against 75 Clarendon. All three communities, I think.

I'm joking when I say that, but it's true, there was strong anti-75 Clarendon Street sentiment in the South End.

I guess this is just another sad case of "I got mine, you're out of luck" by the abutters of Columbus Center.

How disappointing.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I wanted to clarify one thing.

According to an interview published in Banker & Tradesman, Rep Marty Walz is not against Columbus Center.

She is against public financing for the project.

Q: You are among the loudest voices in opposition to Columbus Center [the $800 million project that would be built on a deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike in the South End. It would feature a 35-story glass tower and four 11-story buildings that will house 451 condominiums, a hotel and 917 parking spaces].

A: That?s not true. My comments in the last few years about Columbus Center have related exclusively to the question of public financing. Once the Boston Redevelopment Authority approved the project, I haven?t said a word in opposition to the project itself. I object to the taxpayers subsidizing the profits of a developer.

Q: But why wouldn?t a developer take advantage of public financing?

A: Because the developer [Roger Cassin] got increased height and density in exchange for a promise not to accept public subsidies. [Cassin denies a promise was made.]

Q: But it still doesn?t sound like you supported the 1.3 million-square-foot proposal. You were a member of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and they opposed it, correct?

A: Yes. NABB opposed it. I did not support approval because I thought more changes should have been made. The design could have been improved and the height on parcel 16 should have been further reduced, and there?s too much on-site parking. I want something built there; the question is what kind of development. I have asked the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to move forward with a Request for Proposals for the air rights parcel at Massachusetts Avenue and Boylston Street. I also support John Rosenthal?s air rights project in Kenmore Square.

Source: State Representative Opposes Claims She Opposes Everything
By Thomas Grillo, Banker & Tradesman, January 14, 2008

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

I might also add that the Columbus Center Citizens Advisory Committee, set up by the Mayor to solicit and reflect community sentiment, approved the project, back in 2003.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

For Tobyjug, Ron Newman, and anyone else squawking about neighborhood boundaries . . .

Be advised that the map is not ?my? map. Neighborhood associations draw and revise their own boundaries. They do it based on what the residents of each street decide. The Ellis Neighborhood Association was created decades ago. But it was only recently (just before the Columbus Center proposal) that the residents north of Parcel 16 asked to join the Ellis South End neighborhood.

Street-by-street boundaries don?t matter; the point is that Bay Village is very small, compared to Back Bay and South End, and faces far less of the project than they do. The smallest and least affected of the three neighborhoods supports the project, but the two largest and most affected oppose it.

And among far-away neighborhoods, not one of them asked to have their property taxes raised for 19 years so that Columbus Center?s taxes could be lowered. None of those many neighborhoods support this at all. City-wide, residents who support it are far in the minority, compared to those who oppose it.

I never said Bay Village has no opinion, or no right to one, or that it does not count; my reply about the size, location, frontage, and population of the other neighborhoods was to put all three in perspective because Pelhamhall mentioned only Bay Village, and omitted the other two, as though they don?t exist.

. . . Bay Village is the one that has the most to gain or lose from a poor project. It is the smallest in architectural scale, and could easily be swamped.

That?s untrue. Bay Village has the least to lose, not the most. The proposal illustrates that the Columbus Center buildings nearest Bay Village match the Bay Village buildings in height and density, but it is the skyscraper nearest South End and Back Bay that violates the Turnpike Master Plan. South End and Back Bay have the most to lose, not Bay Village.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . And knowing the awful process CC has gone through, I doubt many companies will try to bid this land knowing they will not see any profit from this project for at least well after they are dead . . .

DarkFenX,
Mayor Menino gave the developers control of the public process, the agenda, and the schedule; there was no public control over the privately bought ?public? process. The Columbus Center process was awful, but only because the developers made it so, knowing that as it became increasingly dreadful, tedious, repetitive, and pointless, people would drift off in disgust. That?s what happened. It was intentional.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . The vast majority of Bostonians want this built and support it. Menino . . . is strongly . . . behind this project.

The ?vast majority? you imagine does not exist. Public records show most of the public as opposing this proposal, and most of their legislators agree. Mayor Menino let the developers dictate who he could appoint to his own advisory committee. And Menino accepted $50,000 from the developers while they were seeking his approval. And Menino?s top political fund-raising agency, the B.R.A., accepted $250,000 in exchange for turning over control of the public process to the developer. So, yes, the mayor is behind it, for obvious reasons.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

I might also add that the Columbus Center Citizens Advisory Committee, set up by the Mayor to solicit and reflect community sentiment, approved the project, back in 2003.

JimboJones,
Mayor Menino gave most seats on his Advisory Committee to the developer on 1 June 1997, and let the developer dictate whom he was allowed to appoint; the Mayor only mailed out the announcement letters.

Members in developer-owned seats always voted as the developer wished, whereas the democratically nominated members always voted as the communities wished. Because the Committee balance was rigged from the outset by its 7-to-4 majority, the public never had a chance. So, yes, all 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer did vote ?in favor? while all 4 democratically nominated members voted ?opposed.?

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

Old Neddy is the Dick Cheney of Nimby activists...he cherry picks information, manipulates data to suit his ends and lives in a bubble of his own making. You are no more likely to have a reasonable debate with Ned about Columbus Center than you are to have a rational discussion with Dick Cheney about Iraq. After months of this back and forth with Ned it is apparent that the vast majority of members on this board do not and will not agree with his analysis. I don't know why we even bother debating him at this point.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

JimboJones,
Mayor Menino gave most seats on his Advisory Committee to the developer on 1 June 1997, and let the developer dictate whom he was allowed to appoint; the Mayor only mailed out the announcement letters.

Members in developer-owned seats always voted as the developer wished, whereas the democratically nominated members always voted as the communities wished. Because the Committee balance was rigged from the outset by its 7-to-4 majority, the public never had a chance. So, yes, all 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer did vote ?in favor? while all 4 democratically nominated members voted ?opposed.?

What was the process by which the "democratically nominated members" were nominated?


Was there a supervised election with nomination papers and electoral formalities in which the public could participate? If yes...
How many registered voters cast ballots for candidates?
How many people ran?
What was the vote tally for each candidate?

If there was no democratic election, kindly answer the following:

Were these four persons nominated by particular groups?
If so, what groups?
Who selected the groups who would do the nominating?
By what process was that selection made?
What was the process by which group chose to make it's nomination?
Who decided the process each group followed in making nominations?
When?
How many persons attended the meetings at which the nominations occurred?
What was the ratio of members of the public to group members?
Were the nominations open to persons other than group members?
Who made the nominations at each group meeting...an executive committee or were they offered from the floor?
Were the nominations contested by more than one nominee at each nomination meeting?
Were any non-group members nominated and appointed to the four slots?

My concerns are these:
How can any part of the Advisory Committee be deemed to be "democratic" unless all of the members were elected?
If there was no election, why is the opinion of any one party at interest's undemocratically selected delegate any more valid than than the opinion of another party's undemocratically selected delegate?

If there was no public election, how can any appointee claim the mantle of representing "the public"? Democracy isn't supposed to be a clinic in situational ethics. The process is either democratic or it isn't. If there wasn't an election, "the four" are no better or worse, and no more empowered to speak for "the public" than "the seven".

Ned?

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Today you lost the credibility you had with me, Ned. My apologies to the rest of you that it took me so long and so many words to come around. You are dead to me, Ned, and all your postings are now just a bunch of CowPats and UFO's.
Oh, yes, by the way Ned. The group you purport to affiliate with (but which does not list you in its lengthy identification of officers and directors) was incorporated in 1982, not "decades ago", involuntarily dissolved in 1987 by the Secretary of State for failure to file required reports, doesn't file any annual meeting minutes, and didn't even hold the required annual meeting in 2004. I am sure there are many worthy people in the group. Nonetheless, pardon me if I lack the faith necessary to believe that this group alone should be the sole arbiter of neighborhood boundaries. And since you only bleat in response to clear and legitimate observations about your claims, I no longer believe you have the mental horsepower to prove your case by honest discourse.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Street-by-street boundaries don?t matter; the point is that Bay Village is very small, compared to Back Bay and South End, and faces far less of the project than they do. The smallest and least affected of the three neighborhoods supports the project, but the two largest and most affected oppose it.

...

South End and Back Bay have the most to lose, not Bay Village.

Really? I live in Back Bay....on Comm. Ave at Hereford, and I own if that further entitles me to my opinion. I support the project, not that it really affects me in any sort of way, given my distance from it, but I never like crossing the Pike on Berkeley, Clarendon or Columbus due the the noise.

My point mostly being,

1. To say that Back Bay opposes it is wrong, perhaps the people that go to NABB meetings do, but then again, they oppose everything.....

2. This project will affect me far less than those living in Bay Village. It will affect almost every resident of Back Bay far less than Bay Village.....

3. In case you haven't noticed a trend, there is almost always reciporical support between South End and Back Bay resident groups....just as South End is protesting the Pru additions, even though it will have no affect on them.

4. Yes, I would have loved Millenium's ~59 story tower over the Pike get approved, even though it would have direct affect on my unit, in terms of shadows, etc. The advantages of covering the Pike (reducing sound and wind) as well as offering retail amenities would far outweigh all negatives.....in fact, I'd gladly pay an extra $100/year in property taxes to revive that project......

 

[Merper]

Re: Columbus Center

"Turnpike Master Plan" - is this the same as the "civic vision" document? the one that calls for the 'high spine', pretty much along the turnpike?

for what its worth, i'm a south end resident (edit: and owner), live about two blocks from where columbus center would rise. Probably as affected by it as anybody.

I'm 105% in favor of the project.... even with the subsidy.

Could it be better? sure. of course. everything can. But as is, its better than what we have now, and thats good enough for me.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

DarkFenX,
Mayor Menino gave the developers control of the public process, the agenda, and the schedule; there was no public control over the privately bought ?public? process. The Columbus Center process was awful, but only because the developers made it so, knowing that as it became increasingly dreadful, tedious, repetitive, and pointless, people would drift off in disgust. That?s what happened. It was intentional.

Yes of course. Obviously the goal of the CC developers was to drag it out over multiple years and losing millions of dollar doing so. That is total bullshit. It was not intentional. Anyone with half a brain knows that no one would drag a project out and lose money on purpose. Now you're just putting words in people's mouth. CC did the most to appease the neighborhood. They could have totally ignore the groundwater problem, propose without parkland, and even avoid lopping off a few stoories, but did not. It is the activists that make it tedious, repetitive and pointless. And trust me, any future projects over this air right will be met with the same resistance. Have fun sucking car exhaust and listening to the noise pollution from the highway below.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

Bay Village directly abuts this project. The closest Back Bay resident is four blocks away, around Newbury and Clarendon (or Berkeley).

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

The City of Boston website puts the corner of Clarendon Street and Columbus Ave in Bay Village. The city's Inspectional Services Department puts it in a Back Bay / Beacon Hill ward.

What was the point of this discussion, again?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Some forum members say the forum is, by definition, slanted pro-development. They may find this clip from the state?s premier development newspaper to be informative. The reporting/editorial staff has done wider and deeper research on this project than many forum members ? based on their posts ? appear to have done.

Published in Banker & Tradesman, ?The Real Estate, Banking, and Commercial Weekly for Massachusetts, established 1872" (14 April 2008 edition):

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Hello, TobyJug.

It?s great that someone finally asked the 18 questions you posed. Here?s the answer.

The democratically nominated members were chosen in 2000 from their respective community organizations in the South End and Back Bay. Each organization (South End Ellis Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Back Bay Association, Claremont Neighborhood Association) counted its own nominations, candidates, voters, and votes. The process was overseen by each organization and/or its state legislator, not by the Boston Election Commission, so voter registration was not an issue. The meetings and nominations were open to the public. Everyone who wanted to participate within each organization did so. The organizations were chosen by the Mayor.

How can any part of the Advisory Committee be deemed to be "democratic" unless all of the members were elected?

Easily. The Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee consisted of two kind of seats: 7 developer-owned seats and 4 democratically nominated seats. The 7 developer-specified members sat in seats owned by the development team (MTA, BRA, construction industry). The 4 democratically nominated members sat in seats reserved for communities which democratically nominated people to represent them.

Thanks for asking.