Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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 lack the faith necessary to believe that this group alone should be the sole arbiter of neighborhood boundaries.

TobyJug,

You didn?t dig deep enough, or you would have learned:

Firstly, I was a Vice President of the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association for 1997-2000, and a Board Director and Air Rights Committee member for 2000-2003. You wrote that I ?purport to affiliate? with the group in 2008, but I never said that, you mistakenly assumed it.

Secondly, you wrote that it was not formed decades ago. That is untrue. It was. It was first incorporated only in 1982, but it existed long before that.

Thirdly, you wrote that the organization was ?involuntarily dissolved.? That is untrue. While the corporate status was dissolved, the organization has continued uninterrupted, on the same basis as most neighborhood associations across the city.

Fourth, you wrote that no annual meeting was held in 2004. That is untrue. Annual meetings and annual elections are publicized and held every spring, even though no longer reported as a corporation.

Finally, Boston city officials encourage all neighborhood groups to form, and re-form, their own boundaries as needed. There?s no better authority for setting a group?s jurisdiction than the members of the group itself. It couldn?t be more democratic than that.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

Hello, Merper.

It?s great that someone is finally asking about the Master Plan, as it seems most forum members never read it.

Yes, the 101-page Turnpike Master Plan (functional title) is also known as ?A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston? (prose title). It required 2 years, 50 public meetings, and $1 million, and received nationwide acclaim when it was finished.

No, it does not call for a high spine. The Turnpike Master Plan calls for maximum building heights averaging 90 feet (60 - 180, depending upon parcel).

As illustrated above, the Turnpike Master Plan requires a 2-acre, contiguous public park on Parcel 18 whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet. California?s Columbus Center put a 420-foot skyscraper on Parcel 16, but omitted the required Parcel 18 park. The developers replaced the required park with a 633-car garage, thus violating the requirements of the Master Plan.

On the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee, the 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developers voted ?in favor? of violating the Plan; the 4 democratically nominated members voted ?opposed.?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . any future projects over this air right will be met with the same resistance.

That is untrue. Future proposals that:

● are competitively bid,
● are publicly audited,
● comply with the Turnpike Master Plan,
● keep their promises regarding subsidies,
● meet commercial lending criteria,
● keep public parks public instead of converting them to private gardens,
and
● remediate the UFP air pollution

will be accepted and endorsed by the public. Proposals that don?t will suffer the same fate as California?s Columbus Center.

. . . Have fun sucking car exhaust . . . from the highway below.

If you think that the defeat of the project retains or increases air pollution, then you still don?t understand the proposal?s approach to railway and roadway air pollution.

There is no approach: no impact, no change, no improvement, no remediation.

The project was proposed and approved based on the developer?s promises to hermetically seal the tunnels and clean the air below before exhausting into the communities above. In reality, however, MTA and California now plan that the railways and roadways will capture, concentrate, and exhaust UFP air pollution ? untreated ? into the project itself and adjacent neighborhoods.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

There's no park in the current proposal?

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

Someone needs a little lesson in the theory of self selecting groups. This whole, "the neighborhood groups represent the will of the people" argument is laughable. The Mayor, brought into office through city wide elections, who has managed to win every election since 1992, who as was reported this week still garners a 75% approval rating, supports the project! Someone explain to me why the neighborhood groups disagree with the person who is quite arguablly the most popular city official of all time. I'm waiting with baited breath to hear the conspiracy theories about this one!

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

There's no park in the current proposal?

There?s a slim, linear park, a tree garden, and a park-ette; however, California?s Columbus Center omitted from their latest plans the 2-acre contiguous park required on Parcel 18 whenever Parcel 16 has a skyscraper over 150 feet. The skyscraper is 420 feet, but the corresponding park doesn?t exist. This is one of the ways in which the members sitting in the 7 developer-owned seats on the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee violated the Master Plan, and betrayed the public.

REQUIRED SKYSCRAPER PARKS ? From Turnpike Master Plan, page 83 of 101 (City of Boston, 28 June 2000).

CALIFORNIA'S LATEST PROPOSAL

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

These are not "Neighborhood Groups" that represent the people who live in the neighborhoods. These are "Elitist Neighborhood Activist Groups". If you ever take a look at the roll-call at these meetings, you'll find that 99% of the people who live in these neighborhoods never, ever attend ANY meetings ever (for better or worse) so therefore you cannot say these fringe, elitist groups represent anything other than 1% of the population.

Let's take a look at Marty Waltz's record. Before she was "for" Columbus Center, she was "against" it. Why? She is an elitist activist, and so in her mind, opposing this project made sense. All of her elitist, out-of-touch friends were against it. Then she realized that most of her constituents - the other 99% were strongly supporting this project. Ooops! She had to change her tune and now says "Well, I was against it until it was approved by the BRA, then I dropped all my complaints, and now I'm for it"

Anyone who is elected by the people in the urban core of the city of Boston are very, very strongly supporting this project. This is a rare mega-project with widespread support across the city. I can't wait to see it start rising in about 18 months.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

If I lived on the north side of Cortes, I might rather have the south side fully covered with a building (third diagram) instead of only half-covered with a park (second diagram). What will the fa?ades look like on that side? Hopefully not like a typical parking garage.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

This is one of the ways in which the members sitting in the 7 developer-owned seats on the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee violated the Master Plan, and betrayed the public.

Or, alternately, aided the public by creating a better, more intimate public space (a la Comm Ave Mall) and removing a useless, wind-swept field.

Depends on your taste and perceptive I suppose.

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

I think where you are losing us (or at least me) Ned is why you think that a 2 acre park is inherently better than a building and several smaller parks. Pick up any writing on city planning and you'll find that the model of large expanses of park space is not the ideal but rather smaller parks with strong boundaries tend to be the more successful. Places people move through, not just stand in. Look at the Fens versus Post Office Square. One is a sprawling mess of unmaintained grass and swamps where the most unimaginable things happen, and the other a bustling lively space in the heart of the city.

As an aside: is the South End hurting for more parks? Have you walked thought Blackstone Square recently? Totally neglected and full of junkies bathing in the fountains. I simply don't see a need to expand a system that can barely maintain what it currently has.

 

[tobyjug]

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.


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.

No part of this was democratic. The term "democratically nominated" is an artifice. No election by the people, no democracy.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . The Mayor, brought into office through city wide elections . . . garners a 75% approval rating

Hello, Underground.

That?s untrue. The latest rating is 72%, not 75% (?City worried about crime. . .?, Boston Globe, 20 April 2008).

Moreover, although the election was held citywide, only 11% of citizens voted to re-elect Menino. The following percentages are rounded, and not all numbers were counted on the same date, but the overall, ultimate effect is clear.

■ City population (U.S. 2000 Census): 589,141.
■ Registered voters (5 February 2008): 345,748 = 59% of city.
■ Voters in last mayoral election (8 November 2005): 94,785 = 16% of city.
■ Votes for Menino: 64,001 = 11% of city.

Menino?s popularity is not ubiquitous; 32% of voters opposed his re-election.

Someone explain to me why the neighborhood groups disagree with the person who is quite arguablly the most popular city official of all time.

Elections of neighborhood association officials, the drawing and re-drawing of their own boundaries, and their nominations of delegates to represent them on the Citizens Advisory Committee are all just as valid as mayoral elections. In each instance, the events are publicized, the process is open, and those who want to participate do so.

Why citizens disagree with the mayor was already covered multiple times, but here are the 7 top reasons that most Back Bay and South End citizens disagree with the Mayor about California?s Columbus Center proposal.

● 1. He approved non-competitive bids.
● 2. He approved skipping the public audits.
● 3. He let the developers dictate to him whom he could appoint as his advisors.
● 4. He exchanged control over the public process to the developers for $250,000.
● 5. He accepted $50,000 from the developers while they were seeking his approvals.
● 6. He approved turnpike zoning that is prohibited by state law.
● 7. He declared one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in America a ?poverty zone? so the benefactor paying him ?campaign contributions? (California) could get federal tax breaks and government-backed, low-interest loans ? at public expense.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

In the second diagram (the one you prefer), what goes on the remainder of Parcel 18 and on Parcel 19?

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

But Ned, but your own math, the attendance of an Ellis meeting (for example, the 07-24-2007 meeting) which had 19 attendees is an even more infinitesimally small percentage of the city. Weak, even when compared to 32%

19/589,141 = 3.22503441 ? 10-5

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . why you think that a 2 acre park is inherently better than a building and several smaller parks . . . smaller parks with strong boundaries tend to be the more successful . . .

Boston?s Public Garden is large, and world-renowned for its success as a large, urban park, so it?s not universally true that small parks succeed and large ones fail. After 50 hearings, 2 years, and $1 million spent on planning, Boston society as a whole published the Turnpike Master Plan, including the decision to require a 2-acre contiguous park whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet. So, the core issue is that a master plan exists, and its provisions are being violated.

. . . I simply don't see a need to expand a system that can barely maintain what it currently has.

When you re-read the public hearing minutes, re-listen to the audio tapes, and re-read California?s latest proposal, you?ll see that all funds needed to operate and maintain the public open spaces were promised to come from the project?s profits, not from the already under-funded city or state park departments, so maintenance costs are no reason to abandon the Turnpike Master Plan requirements.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

In the second diagram (the one you prefer), what goes on the remainder of Parcel 18 and on Parcel 19?

The Turnpike Master Plan is silent about development of the remainder of Parcel 18, and all of the tiny Parcel 19. That leaves both available for additional open space, more mixed-use development, some combination, or nothing at all.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . the attendance of an Ellis meeting (for example, the 07-24-2007 meeting) which had 19 attendees is an even more infinitesimally small percentage of the city . . .

19/589,141 = 3.22503441 ? 10-5

Participation does fluctuate, but historically is usually low, at both the neighborhood level and the city level. Nevertheless, the opportunities are advertised, are open to the public, and are as democratic as any (admittedly imperfect) democratic system can be.

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

Have you considered the possibility that that plan is not equivalent to Biblical Law? Or that the real estate market, the economy, neighborhoods and the city its self are living, breathing, ever-changing elements and that you simply choose to just disregard because they don't fit on your very tidy map? You can stand on top of the Berkeley Street bridge and shout MASTER PLAN!!!! MASTER PLAN!!!!! until you are blue in the face from particle inhalation, but will fail to change what the rest of us on this forum already know from leaving our homes and going to work and wrestling our way around the less than perfect aspects of city living

Plans change.

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

Participation does fluctuate, but historically is usually low, at both the neighborhood level and the city level. Nevertheless, the opportunities are advertised, are open to the public, and are as democratic as any (admittedly imperfect) democratic system can be.

Unless it fluctuates by several thousand, thats hardly relevant.

What I'm seeing is that people have the exact same choice to vote for the Mayor, or join their neighborhood group? Statistically more people city wide chose to vote for the Mayor than interact with the neighborhood association. I think we can now put to rest this notion that the Ellis speaks for any form of a majority.

 

[skintreesnail]

Re: Columbus Center

So technically, would the developer be able to build a tower on the remainder of Parcel 18 and 19, provide no parks and be in compliance with the master plan?

I really don't see the need for a large park so close to Copley and the Gardens. Even if larger parks are successful in some instances, parcel 18 is so close to those two very popular parks that it would probably render the parcel 18 park under-utilized. Instead, it could become a sanctuary for bums and unsavory activities.

Also, in that picture of most recent site plan, it looks like the tracks at parcel 18 are completely covered. Is that true, or does it just not detail the tracks?