Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Aww jeez I'm sorry. It must be real horrible having to hear the same argument repeated over and over and over again. That must really suck.

But, I can't relate. Never have I had to hear the same argument repeated so many times that I wanted to bash my head into a wall.

I will try to be more accomodating in the fututre.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Seamus, if you are referring to my dead horse comment, don't worry. It wasn't directed (directly) towards you.

It was aimed at this entire thread and everyone in it, including myself.

My point was that none us us are really accomplishing anything except aggravating each other.

Sorry if you took it personally, that wasn't my intention.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Seamus, it?s really an?

Irish Wake

The Wake, the glorious send-off of departed loved ones, is a prominent feature of Irish funeral traditions ... in many country areas the practice of watching over the recently deceased from the time of death to burial is still followed and is an important part of the grieving process, which is why many Irish funerals, outside of the cities, are still preceded by a wake.

The origin of the wake probably dates back to the ancient Jewish custom of leaving the sepulchre, or burial chamber, of a recently departed relative unsealed for three days before finally closing it up, during which time family members would visit frequently in the hope of seeing signs of a return to life.

A more recent story, which is almost certainly a myth, is that the tradition of the wake in Ireland came about as a result of the frequent lead poisoning suffered by drinkers of stout from pewter tankards. A symptom of this malaise is a catatonic state resembling death, from which the sufferer may recover after a period of a few hours to a day or so, to the relief of those watching for signs of such an awakening.

Whatever the origins, there is no doubt that the ceremony of the wake has provided comfort to those who have nursed a loved one through a terminal illness or have had them snatched away by disaster without the chance to say goodbye. It is an opportunity to celebrate the departed?s life in the company of family and friends and to mark their departure from their home for the last time. A wake is a scene of both sadness and joy as the end of that life is marked but the life itself is remembered and treasured.


http://www.rip.ie/menu.asp?menu=329
 
Re: Columbus Center

Howdy... I am new to this board and thread but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents into the ring.

I have been a South End resident since 1996. I am also a South End business owner. My daily routine takes me on the path where this project was to be located (I walk down Tremont to the gym near downtown crossing). I was very much looking forward to having the Bay Village/Chinatown side of the Pike reunited with the South End side. Having added businesses and park space would have been a HUGE plus especially considering what is currently there.

It really does seem as if the selfish interests of a few (the folks who would lose views or gain shadows...oh, the horror of a shadow in a city!) is holding up quality projects across the board. This WAS a quality project. Affordable housing, increased street vitality, added green space, added businesses, and a local hotel would have been wonderful additions to any space but were that much better since they were planned for in the void. What a waste it is to see it in its current state.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Welcome to the board, SouthEndCoog. Based on your views of this project, I am sure that you will fit right in with the crowd here!
 
Re: Columbus Center

I would not be surprised, to see more work on this location, I am led to believe. Enough, to ensure the permitting process does not need to be gone through again.

I have not read this whole thread. I will not lie. Perhaps somewhere it makes mention of the fact that the project was shut down, very shortly, after a local rep flipped on the Casino bill, and the speaker got his way.

There has been a lot of money expending on this project. Whether it is too much to walk away from or not I can't say. But I would be willing to say it is close.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Clearly, there are good projects, and bad projects. This was a good project. It really would be a shame to see this abandoned.

On the other hand, I would not mind seeing that overgrown wart of a building, 888 Boylston, abandoned and replaced with a permament plaza.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I don't understand what this project would have to do with a casino bill. No casino was planned for this property, and none would ever be approved there.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I have not read this whole thread. I will not lie. Perhaps somewhere it makes mention of the fact that the project was shut down, very shortly, after a local rep flipped on the Casino bill, and the speaker got his way.

Columbus Center is a mixed-use residential/retail project. The only place being discussed as a possible location for a casino in Boston is in East Boston where Suffolk Downs is. I have to agree with Ron Newman in questioning what a pol flipping on a casino bill would have to do with this project.
 
Re: Columbus Center

It's called politics....there's a million analogies....simply said, if you need a project in your district to receive government subsidies, then sometimes you are at the mercy of other (more powerful) politicians who will expect you to support them on issues they deem important....
 
Re: Columbus Center

Seamus, if you are referring to my dead horse comment, don't worry. It wasn't directed (directly) towards you.

It was aimed at this entire thread and everyone in it, including myself.

My point was that none us us are really accomplishing anything except aggravating each other.

Sorry if you took it personally, that wasn't my intention.

Nay nay. was directed more at.....

I am sick of hearing the argument that "the city was here before you"

Just pointing out a ridiculous statement. When this whole thread has been nothing but repeating the same boring old arguments.

But, since I rarely use the quote feature it went astray. If you read my previous post, I'm all about the dead horse analogy. Basically I got wrapped up in the whole sniping thing on here, which I am not about. So, no harm no foul.

Really, I just hate seeing this thread pop back up to the top. It gets your hopes up that there might be some progress on it, and then you find out it's just more of the same ol' bitching.

Now, I've gone and kept this thing alive again. So, I'm swearing off this thread until there is some actual news to speak of.
 
Re: Columbus Center

My understanding is that a rep did not want something in the area they represented and voted against Casino legislation and was rewarded.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Oh, I understand what you are saying now. That definitely makes more sense than what I thought you were getting at. Sorry about the confusion.
 
Re: Columbus Center

No comments sought apparently from our urban activists.

Bad air at Back Bay too costly to fix, T says

By Christine Pazzanese, Globe Correspondent | August 31, 2008

How do you find the Back Bay MBTA station? You could look at a map. Or, you could just take a deep breath and follow the acrid odor of diesel fumes.

GlobeWatch frequently passes through the station, and wanted to know why such a busy public transportation nexus always seems smoggy and smelling like a row of 18-wheelers is idling inside the station.

A study published last year by the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force found that the air quality on Platforms 1, 2, and 3 at the Back Bay station, as well as in stairwells and the waiting area leading to those platforms, was being sullied by exhaust from the diesel engines used by the MBTA commuter rail trains.

The task force visited the station in late 2006 and then again this past April. "The air was horrible," said Bruce Hill, a senior researcher. "The air was many, many times below air-quality standards." Soot levels measured during the studies were "off the charts high," in some cases greater than could be measured by the devices being used by researchers, he said.

The problem, Hill says, is that the roof of the station platforms traps diesel fumes precisely where riders are standing. When train doors open, the dirty air gets sucked into train cars and doesn't dissipate for "quite a while" later. The natural air flow causes fumes to be drawn up the stairwells and into the ticket/lobby area.

Hill said the air-ventilation system doesn't adequately filter out diesel fumes and soot particles, making the experience of regularly waiting on the station's commuter rail platforms potentially dangerous for those with respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis or those with other serious health problems like heart disease and lung cancer.

"People that are particularly sensitive to air pollution and allergies should avoid Back Bay station because the air is so extreme," he said.

A Globe reporter visiting last week found the air relatively clear, but noted the unmistakable odor of diesel permeated the commuter rail platforms, stairwells, and lobby area, even several minutes after a train had left the station.

The MBTA responds

The diesel fumes situation at Back Bay station is well known to T officials, said spokesman Joe Pesaturo.

After riders complained about the smog in a 1992 customer survey, the T hired a consultant to study the air problem and recommend improvements. The study, by Stone & Webster, confirmed that there were "elevated" levels of carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, particulates, and oxides of nitrogen, though it noted that there is no regulated standard to meet for indoor air quality in public spaces.

Pesaturo said the T took a number of recommended steps, such as making sure train engines are properly maintained, ensuring they stop at the proper location on platforms, adjusting the train schedule to minimize the number in the station at any one time, and enforcing a no-smoking policy.

The next step would be to replace the ventilation system, something the T would like to do but cannot. "The T does not have the financial resources to take on a project like this on our own," said Pesaturo.

As part of the nearby Columbus Center project, the developer had promised to make "substantial improvements (worth approximately $700,000) to the ventilation system at Back Bay Station," he said.

But the shaky financial picture of that $800 million project has delayed - if not derailed - the likelihood there will be a new system anytime soon.

"The Columbus Center project is on hold for now, and thus the new ventilation system promised by the developers is on hold too," said Mac Daniel, a Mass. Pike spokesman, via e-mail.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/31/bad_air_at_back_bay_too_costly_to_fix_t_says/
 
Re: Columbus Center

Well our good friend Ned obviously doesn't want air quality improvements for those poor, poor people going through Back Bay station every day! The pollution technically may be worse afterward, but it will seem better, and that is all that matters because pollution really isn't that harmful to you, even at extreme levels (I live in Tianjin, China at times, and the polluted days there may look bad, but is little worse to your health than blue sky days. Very few people die from pollution, if it happened we would be hearing stories all the time of massive die-offs in LA!).
 
Re: Columbus Center

There is technology that they use in railyards in CA where the diesel locomotive is parked under a hood which collects and scrubs the exhaust, including UFPs. Its stationary technology, i.e., the engine can't be moving.

If there is enough tunnel clearance, you might be able to adapt such technology for Back Bay. And if you are seeking to scrub a small volume of air, i.e., not the atmosphere writ large, not a multi-lane highway tunnel, in concept, you could significantly reduce the air pollution from the MBTA's diesels.

Now I wonder why there has been no crusading for that limited but practicable initiative to be done.

diesel-1.jpg

Source page:
http://www.tri-mer.com/ccs-case-study-6-diesel-exhaust-emissions.html#diesel
 
Re: Columbus Center

All I can think is, if I'm a T employee who works there on a regular basis, I smell lawsuit.
 
Re: Columbus Center

. . . Building over a highway means a couple of things that people with no clue about real estate may not know . . .

Had you read the 1,331-page proposal and the 3,400-page lease that so many forum members never did read, you would already know the 3 major fallacies in your thinking. _ Here they are.

. . . The staging area . . . you have to lease/buy areas around the site to house your equipment. This is costly. Real estate in the vicinity of CC is not cheap.

It?s not true that lots of extra, expensive land had to be bought/leased around the site for staging areas. _ MTA gave a huge staging area in Weston to the developers ? for free. _ Only one tiny piece of property had to be rented, for which the owner charged nil. _ All other staging areas are actually inside the boundaries of the air rights property. _ So, no, staging has none of the financial impact you assumed.

. . .Parking . . . The first option is to build a secondary (and extremely costly) building to house the parking, which means building a second "deck" over a second parcel. The second parcel obviously needs to be purchased/leased. And this is not free.

Yes, the developer had to lease parcel 18-G to build the 633-car garage that unlawfully replaced the required 2-acre public park. _ And although it wasn?t free, it nearly was, because MTA charged the developer only $305,000, a rent that is pennies on the dollar of its fair market value.

. . .Your second option is to build the parking within the first 3-4 stories of the property. This kills the street life, and . . . 10% of your building is now parking, not revenue-generating.

The parking is on the lower floors, street life is insulated from it, and the parking spots are the most profitable modules in the entire project, at $92,205 apiece. _ That was the developer?s price nearly 3 years ago. And the latest draft of the lease allows completion in 2025, so while the rent never increases, the sale prices and profits would.

Either you overlooked this information when you read the proposal and the leases, or else you just never read them at all.
 
Re: Columbus Center

. . . Poor Winn, they made a backroom but totally legal deal . . .

No they didn?t make a legal deal.

It is not legal to write, under penalties and pains of perjury, that a project is public infrastructure, when in fact it is totally privately owned.

It is not legal to write, under penalties and pains of perjury, that financing is 100% secured, when in fact, no bank loan was ever issued, approved, or even applied for.

It is not legal to obtain subsidies by testifying that the tunnels are hermetically sealed, when no such seal was ever proposed, approved, or required.

It is not legal to write, under penalties and pains of perjury, that all open space is publicly owned and operated, when in fact it is privately owned, leaving the public with no control and no recourse.

It is not legal to tell bankers there are investors that don?t exist.

And it is not legal to tell investors there are bank loans that don?t exist.

And it is not legal to tell bankers or investors that there are public subsidies that don?t exist.

And it is not legal to claim financing that does not exist, or to conceal financing that does exist.

If you need to, just re-read the prospectus that Winn gave to California, re-read the Anglo Irish Bank?s 19-page list of requirements that had to be met before applying for a loan, and re-read all of the public subsidy applications, 2005-2007.
 
Re: Columbus Center

. . . It really does seem as if the selfish interests of a few (the folks who would lose views or gain shadows) is holding up quality projects across the board. This WAS a quality project. . . What a waste it is to see it in its current state.

The ?view/shadow? crowd that many forum members imagine never existed. No public opposition to this project on that basis was ever filed.

What sank the entire venture was the developers themselves. . .

. . . who claimed investors, bank loans, and subsidies that they couldn?t produce;
. . . who claimed to be subsidy-free, but then asked taxpayers to pay their costs and profits;
. . . who proposed public open space that they later converted to private gardens;
. . . who said the project contained public infrastructure, when it contains none;
. . . who said for 13 years in a row that construction was imminent, yet nothing was ever built;
. . . who now are negotiating to re-start in 2010, and finish in 2025.

If they did what they proposed, or proposed what they could do, the outcome might have been closer to what you wish for. But they did not.

If any of the above 6 bullets are new to you, just re-read the proposals, leases, subsidy applications, and government corespondence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top