Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[bbfen]

Re: Columbus Center

Do you think that you and other BEEARNs (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) should move to Nova Scotia, where no one will notice or care what you do, and you can develop to your heart?s content?_ No, of course you don?t._ The argument that citizens who dislike this proposal should move to another country is no more valid than your equally ridiculous argument that developers who like this proposal should move it to another country.



People who live and work along such corridors are not required to accept any air pollution increase at all._ Your argument that they should accept more pollution just because a developer wants to create it carries no weight with any of them._ The air pollution level can be kept the same, or it can be reduced, but there is no necessity to increase it.

What developer wants to "create" more air pollution? Huh?

Is this like part of your half-cocked idea that a building is supposed to mitigate pollution from a highway built 44 years ago? (the Pru project at 800 Boylston)

 

[type001]

Re: Columbus Center

Hey Ned, why don't you move them? You seem to know what's best for the area.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

What developer wants to "create" more air pollution?

All six firms currently proposing to develop air rights along the I-90 corridor would increase the exposure, to the worst air pollution known, for large numbers of workers and residents, via the exhaust vent scheme approved by the BRA and the MTA in 2003._ People who work and live near the vents are exposed to as much as a ten-fold increase over those not near the vents._ Re-read the public records for details.

Is . . . a building . . . supposed to mitigate pollution from a highway built 44 years ago? (the Pru project at 800 Boylston)

No._ A building isn?t supposed to do anything, because it?s an inanimate object._ And what you call ?the Pru project? is actually 8 skyscraper towers:_ 6 existing towers, plus one new tower at 800 Boylston Street, and another new tower at 60 Exeter Street._ People working and living in all 8 towers, as well as the rest of the mid-rise and low-rise complex, are (and will be) exposed to toxic air vented into the complex above from the transportation corridor below, especially if the air continues un-filtered and un-treated.

Owners of proposed projects that would expose tenants, buyers, or neighbors to toxic air are now required, under state law, to:_ (a) quantify the public health risks; and (b) mitigate those risks._ The Fenway Center is one example; re-read the public records for details.

And owners of existing projects are now urged, by the Secretary of Environment, to address the public health risks posed by exhausting toxic air from the transportation corridor trains and motor vehicles into the community._ The Prudential Center is one example; re-read the public records for details.

Don?t be confused into assuming that just because the railways and roadways are already built, and the new towers aren?t yet built, that they are unrelated and have no connection._ Since the corridor was built and tunneled 46 years ago, state and federal agencies were created to address environmental protection, including toxicity of the air vented from such corridors into communities._ And since those agencies were created, thousands of studies have been completed linking particulate matter to birth defects, incurable illness (heart disease, lung disease, cancer), and early mortality._ Check the National Library of Medicine for details.

Each of the current and future proposals would imperil thousands of citizens by exposing them to the most harmful type of air pollution known._ Those proposals are subject to scrutiny today that did not occur a half century ago._ That?s because the risks were unknown in the 1960s, but every public health official recognizes the risks as confirmed science today._ Re-read the public records for details.

 

[kennedy]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, would it make sense to claim that if more people lived in an area with high air toxicity or whatever, that there would be more motivation to clean it up?

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

No. That?s untrue.

Firstly, DarkFenX / KentXie, had you reviewed the public records of the community meetings, you would know that there is no relationship between community satisfaction and the number of Columbus Center meetings, because Mayor Menino?s development staff gave control of the quantity, frequency, and timing of all public meetings to the developers.

The developers held whatever meetings they wanted held, and canceled the meetings they didn?t want held, including meetings that the City had previously promised would be held, and meetings for which the City?s consultants had been paid in full._

The developers ended all public meetings after the public learned that:
(a) most seats on the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee were owned by the developer;
(b) several years of public hearings were secretly recorded by the developer;
(c) the developer told the City consultants to halt their consulting services; and
(d) the City consultants were paid, in full, by the developer.

It is true that communities do not approve projects that are based on bribery, fraud, master plan violations, and public health risks._ But anyone who blames the failures of such projects upon a community, as you do, completely misunderstands the public process in a democratic society._ The failures of such projects are never any community?s fault; rather, they are the fault of developers who ignore the pre-set requirements:_ no bribery, no fraud, no master plan violations, and no public health risks._

Any developer that ignores those requirements should expect to fail.

Having ignored those requirements, the CalPERS-MURC-CUIP team should not be surprised that they have failed.

Oh now I see. So the next CC developers should make an effort to minimize the amount of public meetings so they can speed up the progress. I like that idea. Beal co. should maybe create a maximum 3-4 community meetings to listen to the community and then after that, prepare for construction without having to listen to the community.

 

[type001]

Re: Columbus Center

Does anybody else truly believe that Ned should be banned from the forum, or at least have this particular thread locked? It's quite clear that he is only posting these articles as some sort of lame "told-you-so" attempt. He has ceased to add any beneficial argument or informative content.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

I love hearing Ned's thoughts - he should absolutely not be banned. This shouldn't be a cheer-leading forum for tall buildings, but a place where people like Ned and Shirley Kressel can post their thoughts.

Sure, he's totally Rainman on this project, fixated to a point of obsession, absolutely delusional, teeming with misinformation, hysterical to the point of comedy, stark-raving mad, etc, etc.... but who cares?

Why on earth would we silence him? What would that say about this forum? I want to hear Shirley Kressel's thoughts. I don't want to just hear architect fanboys gawk and awe over tall buildings.

The best part about all of this is that Columbus Center is an appoved real estate development. All Beal has to do is show us the money and the cranes start tomorrow. Ned is quite literally screaming at a train that has already left the station. That's what's almost... poetic... about his continued fight.

I for one love hearing the latest diatribes and missives from Camp Ned, please don't take them away from me!!!!

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

 

[nova617]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, posting 5 times in one morning makes you seem obsessive to the point of insanity. Your view is safe for now, thank goodness. Your time would now be better spent finding yourself a woman (or man) to enjoy that lovely view with you. What you are doing is unhealthy.

 

[tommym96]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, posting 5 times in one morning makes you seem obsessive to the point of insanity. Your view is safe for now, thank goodness. Your time would now be better spent finding yourself a woman (or man) to enjoy that lovely view with you. What you are doing is unhealthy.

Agreed. Take a hike.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

Does anybody else truly believe that Ned should be banned from the forum, or at least have this particular thread locked? It's quite clear that he is only posting these articles as some sort of lame "told-you-so" attempt. He has ceased to add any beneficial argument or informative content.

I did earlier, but no one else agreed with me .

 

[nova617]

Re: Columbus Center

I disagree only because Ned's fanaticism beautifully illustrates why Boston is often seen as a stagnant backwater. Here we have people who buy into the whole bougie "city is in" movement who think they can buy sophistication and hipness. This is all well and dandy until their views/property values are threatened. Then, all of a sudden, people who rarely venture from their luxury condos (and certainly couldn't care less about the surrounding neighborhood or their neighbors) develop lofty principles about urban design. Suddenly, these self-proclaimed "community activists" become experts on how traffic, pollution and (worst of all) SHADOWS affect their area. Which is not to say that Ned's points are invalid, but rather that his motivations are so obviously self-serving. His seemingly-universal ideals of the review process and urban planning do not apply to projects that are not right next to his building. This is what really irritates people...

 

[joebos]

Re: Columbus Center

I like to read Ned's posts too (well, to some extent). I was annoyed by his early comments about particulates until I dropped a friend off at the Back Bay station and had to leave the waiting area due to the fumes from the train. And I'll also say that I think there's something fishy going on with the BRA/Mayor's office and development. Am I wrong to assume that exposing these problems would benefit the architects that participate in this forum?

 

[joebos]

Re: Columbus Center

So it's only the NIMBY's that hold back development/progress in Boston?

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

I like to read Ned's posts too (well, to some extent). I was annoyed by his early comments about particulates until I dropped a friend off at the Back Bay station and had to leave the waiting area due to the fumes from the train. And I'll also say that I think there's something fishy going on with the BRA/Mayor's office and development. Am I wrong to assume that exposing these problems would benefit the architects that participate in this forum?

Many people here are anti-Menino, unfortunately now, he seems to be the best choice vs. the impossibly worse opponents (none of us knew how anti-development all of the opponents would be at the start)

So it's only the NIMBY's that hold back development/progress in Boston?

Menino's grudges against developers he doesn't like has blocked many developments, but his power has the ability to amplify/eliminate NIMBY power with each individual project. After all, he pretty much is the boss of the city, he can do whatever he wants and still get reelected.

 

[nova617]

Re: Columbus Center

The cyclical nature of the Boston economy, the BRA and its puppet master Mumbles, and a general lack of good buildable sites play their roles as well, among other things. However, for me people who live in the city and yet maintain a suburban mindset are the most troublesome. We EXPECT political shananigans (sp.?) from Mumbles and his hacks. But people live in cities because they are generally dynamic, compact places in which there is a great concentration of activity--shops, theatres, transit, etc.--that are constantly changing and (hopefully) growing. To expect to keep one's urban neighborhood static because that's what your idea of city living is seems selfish to me, and more appropriate for suburban or rural areas that are not the nucleus of a region of 5,000,000 people. If every citizen in Boston had this mindset, Boston would NEVER change. While for many people this might seem a good thing, it is hard to imagine people 50 years from now wanting to live in an embalmed, manufactured image of a formerly-great American city.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

See? We're having a really interesting debate here and once again, Ned was the catalyst. I like having him here. But then again, most of my friends consider me a crazy-old-man-in-progress, so I probably have more in common with the guy than I'd like to admit!

I'll repeat the most breath-taking, ponderous and yes, poetic aspect of all of Ned's criticism: THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED. THE NIMBYS FOUGHT IT, THE NIMBYS LOST.

With financing in place, cranes could start erecting steel tomorrow.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

You can't help but be reminded of the Cake song "The Distance" about a man who refuses to quit a race he's already lost:


The arena is empty except for one man,
still driving and striving as fast as he can.

The sun has gone down and the moon has come up,
and long ago somebody left with the cup.

but he's driving and striving and hugging the turns.
and thinking of someone for whom he still burns.

He's going the distance.

 

[bbfen]

Re: Columbus Center

to mods: I hope that contributerrs like Ned Flaherty, Shirley Kressel or others aren't silenced----that only true trolls of the v1agr4 sort are blocked.

"Know thine enemy" and all that. (Kidding! sort of.)

I'm personally enthusiastic in my opinions and experience, but still want to know what others are thinking, and to hear can't always be said in a public forum due to time constraitns and stuff.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

The only reasons calling for his ban would be the way he condescends other forumers and randomly accuse someone for what he/she is not (the whole hiding behind your screenname must mean that you are afraid and insignificant). Other than, there should be no warrants for a ban.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

I don't favor banning people I (or other forum members) disagree with.