Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Why has this become an "everyone gang up on Ned" board? Ned has said repeatedly that he does not oppose development of the turnpike air rights, that his views are not affected, and the only things he opposes about this project are:

1. No competitive bids for the project.

2. No financial disclosure.

3. Violation of the Turnpike Master Plan.

4. Project reviewed and approved as subsidy-free, and then the developers seeking public subsidies to pay for their costs and profits.

5. Project reviewed and approved with public parks, then sneakily changed to private gardens for the condo-owners.

6. Pollution from the cars and trains under the project concentrated tenfold (my figure, so don't jump all over me it it isn't exactly correct) and vented back into the community.

If you agree that these six things shouldn't happen, then lay off Ned, since we all agree on the these basic points. Personal attacks, name calling, and endless nit-picking over details do nothing to add value to this forum.

If you think these six things are okay, then trying to convince you otherwise is pointless, since you have other interests in mind than good development and good government.

Columbus Center, as was already mentioned, is not the last word in developing this site. Let's have it done right, by a competent developer, a feasible project that benefits everybody, and a REAL public process....one controlled by the public and not the developer, and not one purchased by giving the Governer a $10,000 "contribution."
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

Short and sweet. If those were the prime motivations behind Mr. Flaherty's arguments, he would be all over every development in the city, past and present, and everywhere across the country. My goodness, shady dealings on a multi-million dollar development. When has that ever happened before.

Those 6 issues are very valid issues (and exist to some degree or another on almost every project.). But, on the outside (read impossible) chance that those 6 issues were taken care of to one Mr. Flaherty's satisfaction (yes welcome to la la land), would he not find somewhere a 7th reason or issue? Of course.

These valid issues are a means to the locals real end. That is, not disrupting there lives that they have come to believe are their inalienable rights. I paid for this great view, this amount of parking, this amount of traffic, this amount of pedestrians, etc. it better damn well stay that way. Let's forget that when my building was built and/or I moved in, it inconvienced the previous residents. "F" them and don't dare call me a hypocrite.

Yes, he's in favor of pike air rights developments. I believe that whole heartedly. Just not in an area where in negatively effects his standard of living.

There is no such thing as a perfect development, and like that guy once said "you can't please all the people all the time."

Now I don't really want to jump on the "let's bash Ned wagon", because he has provided a lot of interesting data and articles (yes too much since it began) and it's good to see how much swindling is going on places. But, c'mon, look back several pages at the lovely .gif someone uploaded. The horse has been beaten so much that Elmer's is knocking at the door with an offer to buy. (Yeah weak glue joke.)

Alright I gotta go home.... got a UFP producing train to catch, so I'll just end without any fanfare. The project is dead, the horse is dead, if they build this all those richies living near it will be dead from inhalation, when can this post be dead?

I guess it wasn't so short and sweet.

Oh. F the public process, and F the public. The residents are transient by city standards. The city was here before you, and the new buildings will be here long after you. Yes, that's a bit harsh. Let the public be involved, but can we get a public with some common sense, with a few better arguments than 20% of a concrete plaza will get shade on 7 days of the year.
 
Re: Columbus Center

...But, Ted......False or even distorted premises can only lead to false conclusions.
 
Re: Columbus Center

If there is no company that makes UFP scrubbers, HOW THE HELL CAN COLUMBUS CENTER BUY AND INSTALL THEM? Your argument makes no sense, if they can't even buy them, how can they install them? And don't say "They can make them themselves", no they can't, they're a development company, not a custom pollution scrubbers manufacturer. Ned, if you don't move out, your lifespan will decrease by 20 years, and you will have a very painful death. So why won't you move out? It will only help you. I am content to have the UFP level stay the same with Columbus Center (don't repeat the same BS about "concentrated", it dissipates and the level stays the same), so suffering from the ultra high amount of UFPs coming from the Pike won't do you any good. In fact, it will only do you bad to stay in your current residence. Do you really want to die early? If you move out, you will not suffer from UFPs, and you will not have to worry about Columbus Center, since it won't be "concentrating" UFPs where you move to. Living anywhere near a road gives you pollution, it's a fact, so can you please move to a 10,000 acre ranch in Wyoming? Thanks, and hope you have a good, healthy life there.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Thanks for mis-quoting me, Ned. Really drives home your point.
 
Re: Columbus Center

If you've ever stood on the Back Bay platform waiting for a commuter train you know the problem first hand. The air pollution at that station is criminal. There doesn't seem to have been any thought put into mitigating the deisel fuel pollution when the station was built. Yet the city, state and MBTA will allow a private developer to cover four more parcels of the pike without any planning for mitigating the effects of the many deisel trains that run through that tunnel every day. This is an MBTA (state) problem, they should be the ones to finally fix this. But the MBTA is broke (and stupid) so we should just be happy that the trains run at all.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Several ArchBoston forum members are unusually interested in the views from the windows at my home. _ I?ve said more than once that my views wouldn?t be affected by this proposal, but KMP1284 and others can?t stop rubbernecking about it. _ So, with apologies to everyone else who isn?t interested, here are the keenly awaited data.

There are 6 fifth floor windows. _ Of those, 4 look south, from which the site of the proposed Columbus Center, being one block to the north, is undetectable. _ Two windows look east across the South End and the railroad tracks (which Columbus Center proposes to preserve as eternally exposed), to Bay Village and then to Chinatown. _ The sight lines are nowhere near Parcel 16, well south of all of Parcel 17, south of 90% of the structures on Parcel 18, and skip over the proposed rowhouse rooftops along Arlington Street.

Nedsviewaerial21-Aug-2008.jpg

Aerial view from Google Earth, 21 August 2008


? The towers proposed for Parcel 16 would not be detectable because of existing structure (orange polygon).
? The towers proposed for Parcel 17 would not be detectable because of existing structure (yellow rectangle), and existing 7-story trees in the South End (omitted from illustration).
? The rooftops of row homes two blocks away on Parcel 18 would be barely visible through existing 8-story trees in the South End (omitted from illustration).

Nedsview3D21-August-2008.jpg

Adapted from ?Building on the Pike? (Boston Globe, 19 March 2006)
 
Re: Columbus Center

I don't see why Ned's windows are such a big deal to some. I know that he opposes this development, one that many of the forum members (myself included) are anxious to see get going. However, I believe that he does indeed want to see this part of the Pike decked, but, since this current proposal doesn't meet what he views as the standard for a quality development, he is fighting it.

Now, do I agree with all of his positions? No, certainly not - I disagree with about half of his arguments. However, I find it a little irresponsible to claim that Ned 'is just another NIMBY' and is 100% against development in that area.

Just my two cents.
 
Re: Columbus Center

SeamusMcFly said:
Oh. F the public process, and F the public. The residents are transient by city standards. The city was here before you, and the new buildings will be here long after you. Yes, that's a bit harsh. Let the public be involved, but can we get a public with some common sense, with a few better arguments than 20% of a concrete plaza will get shade on 7 days of the year.
Click to expand...

I am sick of hearing the argument that "the city was here before you" and therefore those who live in the city should either accept developments that add harm to their health, or move.

The suburbs were also "here before you" and "will be there after you," so this argument is irrelevent.

Citizens have a right to speak up against any development that will bring harm to public health, no matter where it is.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

If Hines wasn't extended on the South Station site, they would really be the perfect developer for this site.

First, their reputation is unimpeachable. Second, they have a long history of building mega-projects over tracks at complicated sites - just like this. Third, they built 500 Boylston and 222 Berkeley - getting actual skyscrapers built NEXT door to Copley Square in the face of the same hysterics from the same anti-progress crowd.

As architects, you can argue the cheesiness of post-modern design or you can ask regular folks on the street who all think the two buildings are really awesome, great additions to the city and helped establish the Back Bay as a business center beyond just the two random skyscrapers (Pru, Hancock).

Hines would do this right. Poor Winn, they made a backroom but totally legal deal with the Turnpike, thinking they would have a sure-fire home run on their hands. They never realized how complicated this would be, they've never done this before, and they held far too many public meetings and tried far too hard to appease too many constituents.

The "public benefit" of this project is repairing the Turnpike scar, and making this part of the city whole again. Period. They got caught up in all kinds of other extortions from various groups including affordable housing, ground-water regeneration, public parks, etc, etc. The public benefit is a repair of the turnpike hole. That's it. They should not have allowed further erosion of profits.

The next developer will be able to look the public in the eye and say "we're going to build this, but on our terms - not yours, your way failed" and everyone will go along to see it built. This should frighten the anti-progress people far more than the current proposal, which I imagine will be beefed up in today's climate, not toned down.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Leaving aside the other concerns, ground-water is a very legitimate issue, since depleting groundwater threatens the value of all surrounding property. Anything built here should at the least not worsen that situation, and preferably improve it.
 
Re: Columbus Center

pelhamhall said:
Poor Winn, they made a backroom but totally legal deal with the Turnpike, thinking they would have a sure-fire home run on their hands. They never realized how complicated this would be, they've never done this before, and they held far too many public meetings and tried far too hard to appease too many constituents.
Click to expand...
A miller and his son were driving their Donkey to a neighboring fair to sell him.

They had not gone far when they met with a troop of women collected round a well, talking and laughing. "Look there," cried one of them, "did you ever see such fellows, to be trudging along the road on foot when they might ride?' The old man hearing this, quickly made his son mount The Donkey, and continued to walk along merrily by his side.

Presently they came up to a group of old men in earnest debate. "There," said one of them, "it proves what I was a-saying. What respect is shown to old age in these days? Do you see that idle lad riding while his old father has to walk? Get down, you young scapegrace, and let the old man rest his weary limbs." Upon this the old man made his son dismount, and got up himself.

In this manner they had not proceeded far when they met a company of women and children: "Why, you lazy old fellow," cried several tongues at once, "how can you ride upon the beast, while that poor little lad there can hardly keep pace by the side of you?' The good-natured Miller immediately took up his son behind him.

They had now almost reached the town. "Pray, honest friend," said a citizen, "is that Donkey your own?' "Yes," replied the old man. "O, one would not have thought so," said the other, "by the way you load him. Why, you two fellows are better able to carry the poor beast than he you." "Anything to please you," said the old man; "we can but try." So, alighting with his son, they tied the legs of The Donkey together and with the help of a pole endeavored to carry him on their shoulders over a bridge near the entrance to the town.

This entertaining sight brought the people in crowds to laugh at it, till The Donkey, not liking the noise nor the strange handling that he was subject to, broke the cords that bound him and, tumbling off the pole, fell into the river.

Upon this, the old man, vexed and ashamed, made the best of his way home again, convinced that by endeavoring to please everybody he had pleased nobody, and lost his Donkey in the bargain.
 
Re: Columbus Center

And now, the rest of the story:

Months and months were spent arguing over how the donkey died and who was responsible for the poor donkey's death. Meanwhile, the poor donkey lay in the river while everyone fought over who was to blame and where the fault lay. The dead donkey was eventually dragged up from the river and beaten and then beaten again and again.

And now you know where we get that old saying.

BTW ablarc, this is your second donkey reference in two days. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top