Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Tobyjug has hundreds of posts on other projects in other threads throughout this forum . . . The suggestion that he is astroturfing the Columbus Center project is absurd and quite frankly, insulting.

I suggested nothing about ?astroturfing? so no insult should be assumed. I only asked, given Toby?s keen interest in backgrounds, who he is and who he?s with. Being so prolific, that?s all the more reason he should have no difficulty in identifying himself and his affiliations.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned,

You are your losing your cool because you have been caught. Rather than put out a rational response, you mud sling. For the record, I represent no one's views other than my own. I do not represent, nor have I advised, any of the parties connected with this project.

Nor I have I researched the other groups you mention, because none of their membership has, to my knowledge, appeared on this website proffering misrepresentations on the scale of your postings. Had they done so, I would have been happy to debunk any falsehoods they offered.

As to your jerrymander map, cartographers used to depict the world as flat. I have no doubt that it was their right to do so. That they exercised that right doesn't mean the result is praiseworthy or valid.

Toby

 

[TC]

Re: Columbus Center

No uglier than the Hancock Garage directly across the street. Those who argue that like buildings should be close to each other should be happy with this arrangement.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And hasn't there been talk about development on this parcel and the BB Station?

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

And just for the record, I have no financial interest in this project, represent nobody other than myself, and do not live in any of the adjoining neighborhoods. It's evident that I lean towards favoring the project, but not unconditionally.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

This will be my final "Ned" post. I'll title it "Fantasy vs. Reality"

His fantasy: The profit is huge, the developer is wallowing in cash and feeding at the public trough while swimming in money and good times. Meanwhile, not one bank will finance this wildly profitable venture

Reality:That's just crazytalk. If his profit fantasy were true, banks would be tripping over themselves to get in line to finance the project. It's not hugely profitable - it's hugely risky... and banks are keeping their distance.

His fantasy: The major neighborhood groups are against the project

Reality: Of the two neighborhoods (with people living in them) that abut this project one of their activist neighborhood groups is on record supporting the project, one of the activist neighborhood groups is on record opposing it. The activist neighborhood group that is against the project averages about 15-25 people in it's group. 50% of the abutting activist neighborhood groups support this project -no small feat in the City of Boston! The city at large is wildly in support of this project.

His fantasy: There's no evidence that building over roadbeds is more costly than building on dry land

Reality: The farther apart you put pilons... what a minute, I'm not even going to argue this one, it hurts my brain!

His fantasy: Venting the turnpike will create a "toxic zone"

Reality: Throughout America highways and subways have been covered, developed over, and properly and healthfully ventilated for decades. There is no history to support this fantasy that decking the highway and traintracks will create a toxic zone. The folks at the InterContinental in Boston would concur.

His fantasy: Activists such as himself have made a difference

Reality: Columbus Center marches on - with full, sweeping support throughout the city. We're just waiting for the capital markets to loosen. I would not be surprised to see some added density to the project to help dangle the carrot in front of banks. Columbus Center will be built - largely as is, and soon.

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

I suggested nothing about ?astroturfing? so no insult should be assumed. I only asked, given Toby?s keen interest in backgrounds, who he is and who he?s with. Being so prolific, that?s all the more reason he should have no difficulty in identifying himself and his affiliations.

Evidently archboston.org is now the floor of the Senate. I call this message board to order!

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Did Columbus Center EVER propose this 2 acre park on Parcel 18? According to you they must have or else it would not be possible to omit.

No. The developers never proposed to comply with the Turnpike Master Plan stipulation for the 2-acre park on Parcel 18, which is a requirement that results from exceeding 150 feet on Parcel 16.

. . . Would you rather see the parks on Parcel's 17 and 19 eliminated to obtain the '2-acre contiguous park' on Parcel 18?

The core issues are:
1. The developers violated a tenet in a Master Plan that was painstakingly crafted by 50 public hearings over 2 years, costing $1 million.
2. Later, when they hoped no one would notice, the developers privatized all public open space into private gardens through legal agreements with MTA and BRA.

My own preferences about parks are unimportant compared to these very central and very public issues. But since you asked, I do feel that all public open space should be publicly owned, operated, and maintained (as promised), and a 2-acre contiguous park is preferable to two smaller ones.

. . . Are those tracks left open on Parcel 17 in the Civic Vision?

The Turnpike Master Plan does not finish designs for any individual parcels. But across all 23 parcels and 44 acres, it treats enclosure of the 7 railways and 8 roadways as equally important, with public open space and or structures built above.

Parcel 17 ? California proposes to visually conceal the railways under Parcel 17, but still exhaust the railway and roadway air pollution via an open-air cavity back into the project, through the park, and then into the community.

Parcel 18 ? California proposes to leave the railways fully exposed, and, like Parcel 17, to exhaust the railway and roadway air pollution via open-air cavities and mechanized exhaust vents, back into the project, through the 3 parks (Parcel 18 tree garden, Parcel 19 open space, Chandler Park south of and adjacent to Parcel 18), and then into the community.

MTA?s and California?s plans are to: (1) vent the air pollution back into the project and (2) leave the railways exposed. Many people participated in the public process but only later discovered what the plans really mean. Overwhelmingly, they feel betrayed, and do not support the latest proposal.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

For the record, I represent no one's views other than my own. I do not represent, nor have I advised, any of the parties connected with this project.

Well it?s good that you weren?t representing any of the parties in whose favor you seem to be advocating. So, not being under any gag orders, then, your name is...? And your firm is...?

Nor I have I researched the other groups you mention, because none of their membership has, to my knowledge, appeared on this website . . .

No members from the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association appeared here, either.

My messages here are my own. They were posted after I finished my officer roles with the neighborhood group. The information I gave about the group was only in reply to other forum members? questions about that organization. Several forum members thought they were seizing the tiger by the tail, but it appears they got the wrong tiger, or actually, no tiger at all.

NABB opposed and still opposes California?s proposal, no more or less than Ellis South End, so you won?t want to ignore that. And how Bay Village came to its current stance is most interesting of all, but so far no one here seems to know, or to care. If Ellis South End held your attention, Bay Village will, too.

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

Once again, if your going to talk about the Turnpike Master Plan as if it were binding legislation, please point out where that statutory authority has been given.

Also, you posted your concipiracy theory about the Bay Villiage folks earlier on. It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Well it?s good that you weren?t representing any of the parties in whose favor you seem to be advocating. So, not being under any gag orders, then, your name is...? And your firm is...?



No members from the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association appeared here, either.

My messages here are my own. They were posted after I finished my officer roles with the neighborhood group. The information I gave about the group was only in reply to other forum members? questions about that organization. Several forum members thought they were seizing the tiger by the tail, but it appears they got the wrong tiger, or actually, no tiger at all.

NABB opposed and still opposes California?s proposal, no more or less than Ellis South End, so you won?t want to ignore that. And how Bay Village came to its current stance is most interesting of all, but so far no one here seems to know, or to care. If Ellis South End held your attention, Bay Village will, too.

Ned,

Now that you have been exposed, are you asking for a duel?

"EIR's at 10 paces, sir! Notify your seconds!"

I am advocating only for truth. And like all zealots, Ned, you believe that truth is an acceptable casualty as long as you achieve your ends.



Toby

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

Why does NABB oppose it, when it is at least four blocks from the nearest Back Bay resident? I don't see how the project has any effect at all on Newbury Street or Comm. Ave.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Don?t leave just yet, PelhamHall.

It's not hugely profitable - it's hugely risky

You?re only half right. California filed subsidy applications claiming unusually high profits, after accounting for the large and unique risks. If you still doubt that, just read their loan applications.

Of the two neighborhoods (with people living in them) that abut this project one of their activist neighborhood groups is on record supporting the project, one of the activist neighborhood groups is on record opposing it.

That?s untrue. There are three neighborhoods on record with official positions: Ellis South End, Back Bay, and Bay Village.

. . . fantasy: There's no evidence that building over roadbeds is more costly than building on dry land.

You and other forum members continue to ignore the difference between gross cost and net cost. Gross construction costs in air may be more than on land; however, comparing each method?s net cost (cost less savings) produces a different answer than comparing only cost.

. . . America highways and subways have been covered, developed over, and properly and healthfully ventilated for decades. There is no history to support this fantasy that decking the highway and traintracks will create a toxic zone.

The National Library of Medicine has thousands of scientific studies on the extremely toxic effects of particulate matter. MTA has is building air pollution exhaust vents along I-90 and I-93 that capture, concentrate, and return fine and ultrafine particulate matter air pollution into the communities above. Most of those National Institutes of Health studies were added since 1996 (when Columbus Center was first proposed). If you still doubt that, just read the studies.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Why does NABB oppose it, when it is at least four blocks from the nearest Back Bay resident?

Hello, Ron.

I am not speaking for NABB, but I did see their correspondence, read their newspaper interviews, and speak with their members, including their democratically nominated delegate to the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee.

As I recall, NABB?s continuing opposition is because of the precedents set by public process failures . . .

● no competitive bids
● no public audits
● control over the public process sold by BRA to developer for $250,000
● 7 of the 11 Advisory Committee seats dictated to the Mayor by the developer
● Mayor?s acceptance of $50,000 from developers while they were seeking his approval
● Turnpike Master Plan violations
● many public subsidies requested for a project proposed as subsidy-free

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

I am advocating only for truth . . .

And, truthfully, TobyJug, since you say you have no reason to hide, then your name is...? And your firm is...? (3rd request)

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

How can you continue to paint the Mayor as some sort of tyrrant and the neighborhood associations as the voice of the people in light of the numbers I presented earlier today? If you remember, I and others demonstrated that, at the very least, the ratio within the city is 3.8 to 1 in favor of the Mayor and the project.

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

And, truthfully, TobyJug, since you say you have no reason to hide, then your name is...? And your firm is...? (3rd request)

Sorry everyone for double posting, but this is ridiculous. Come on Ned, it's the internet.

 

[tocoto]

Re: Columbus Center

R.I.P. Columbus Center

Long Live wrangling over Columbus Center

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Oh Ned, you convinced me to stay... I'll address the issue of anonymity only though. This is a board where we critique architectural and development plans. This is Boston, a tight-knit, small real estate market. It would be very hard for many of us to say "YUCK!" about a project if our colleagues and friends are involved with it, while posting our business contact information. On a web forum, anonymity helps people vent their real feelings and frustrations. It helps keep us honest. I've seen people here trash the work of some good friends of mine. It's totally cool - it's the kind of thing that is welcoming in a world where everyone says "that's nice" to your face. Anonymity helps keep this forum lively and honest. If we had to post our names, titles, firms, etc. then everyone would say "Hmm... Park Lane is beautiful. I love how it evokes, um, Siberian... ah... it's very, very nice" Instead we get to say "what the F was the developer thinking??"

I don't post my thoughts here about just Columbus Center - I am just as passionate and interested in what's going on throughout the city - and even the suburbs. I get excited with the successful plans and curse the failures of the bad ones. I take trips out of my way to go and experience the developments and learn about various nooks and crannies of the city. I attend meetings that aren't even in my neighborhood, just to learn more about what's going on. I'm a Boston boy, born and bred, and always will be. I remember every battle, every fight to get anything useful built in this city. Columbus Center is a no-brainer. It fits, it's right, it's perfect. The city is behind this project, more so than any other mega-project that I've ever seen proposed in my lifetime. That's so rare for a big project like this.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Once again, if your going to talk about the Turnpike Master Plan as if it were binding legislation, please point out where that statutory authority has been given.

Underground,

I do not call the Turnpike Master Plan ?binding legislation? (your words). Nor do I say it has ?statutory authority? (also your words).

But, it is good that people recognize the efficacy of the Plan as the potentially enormous issue that it has been for 8 years, and may yet become.

● The Plan?s purpose is ?to ensure the incorporation of neighborhood issues into the urban planning process? (BRA Director Mark Maloney, 28 June 2000) and ?create corridor-wide urban design principles? (21 December 2000).

● The Mayor and the MTA call it the definitive, ?exhaustive? road map, the ?essential guide to the City and its residents for years to come? and ?critical next steps? (Mayor Menino, 28 June 2000).

● On 20 December 2000, the Boston Redevelopment Authority officially adopted it as the ?framework for the BRA and future Citizens Advisory Committees to review future development proposals as well as a proposed process for air rights development? (BRA Director Mark Maloney, 21 December 2000).

● The 101-page Turnpike Master Plan is the master plan, and it is the only such plan. Having no equivalents or rivals, it carries serious legal weight.

● Over several years, during public meetings and also during slightly more private government meetings, the developers and MTA tried to dismiss the Turnpike Master Plan as nothing more than an optional suggestion. They failed.

If anyone now backs away from this 2-year, 26-member, $1 million master planning effort, then that will make one more item on the growing list of public process transgressions.

But so far, that has not happened.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

And, truthfully, TobyJug, since you say you have no reason to hide, then your name is...? And your firm is...? (3rd request)

Yes, and its classic Ned. Catch him lying, back him into a corner, and he lashes out. He has played this card before on others.

Hey, did you see how quickly Ned shook off his affiliation with the Ellis corporation when it suited him? You'd have to have a good day's catch at the Fish Pier to match that kind of flip flopping.

I propose we turn this thread into "Ned Flaherty", program a response to his posts that say "No, Ned, you are wrong", and he can reply to them to his heart's content. Either that, or chip in for a plane ticket to Guyana, where he can sip KoolAide with Dude Y'ur Sister's Hot.