Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

briv said:
Check your private messages, Bostonbred.
Click to expand...

sent to principals office.

my point to mr pat is if as mr ned f says the air will be more densely bad at his house due to deck it will be bad for the neighborhood too. so why not get rid of diesle trains there with electric, and let new and cleaner cars do their thing, too

i had the idea on West Station and electric shuttles on tracks to it and South Station that solves the real air problem. my point is not understood because 1. i am too eager and write bad; second, the misunderstanding is because so many are hung up on tower or no tower. with all dues respect, it is the deck and vent that is at issue, not a tower(s. tower fixation blinds like the sun.

you could have a deck a mile long with Arnolds' arboretum on it full of orchids and you still have vents with nasty train breath coming out of them. this is the problem to solve, not towers. the big ditch won't be solved till FUNDAMENTAL ROOT OF PROBLEM grasped.

you are all nice to me even if you tease me of make fun and don't follow my ideas. i am used, so it doesnt bother.

i am not supposedto post for awhile so. that is democracy. that is boston
 
Re: Columbus Center

Next person to take bostonbred seriously goes to the corner with the dunce cap.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Justin7 said:
Next person to take bostonbred seriously goes to the corner with the dunce cap.
Click to expand...

Right on, Justin -everyone should realize that, as a wise forum participant once noted, "an ignorant of history is a fool to repeat it."
 
Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center complaints intensify[/size]

By Globe Correspondent Christina Pazzanese ? August 1, 2009

Intensify.jpg


Among the complaints of residents about the unfinished Columbus Center project is the removal of Jersey barriers along the Mass. Pike, Cortes St., and a Pike ramp on Arlington St. (Christina Pazzanese)

As the fate of the stalled Columbus Center project continues to twist in the wind, some residents of Back Bay, Bay Village, and the South End are getting fed up with declining conditions in their neighborhoods. The 7-acre, $800 million development has been in the works since 1996 and calls for a hotel, luxury condominium high-rises, a parking garage, and a new city park to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike from Clarendon Street to Marginal Road.

Though the controversial project has long had its critics, neighbors ramped up concerns and doubts after developers were granted an 18-month construction hiatus to sort out financing difficulties last year.

Renewed complaints by residents prompted officials from the state Executive Office of Transportation, which assumed oversight of the project from the Turnpike Authority in May, and authority officials, to tour the area July 13.

Ned Flaherty, a South End resident and project watchdog, says the developers have 26 restoration tasks that they are required to finish, in addition to promises they must fulfill under the existing lease agreement governing the city and state property.

Among them are removing Jersey barriers along the Mass. Pike, Cortes Street, and a Pike ramp at Arlington Street that narrow the roadway; replacing two dozen trees that were cut down on Cortes; restoring power to more than 75 lights over the Pike that have been dark for well over a year; and paying for a new ventilation system at the MBTA Back Bay train station to help filter high levels of diesel exhaust.

Other requests include taking down construction fences, and cleaning up trash and weeds.

The developer, state, and city respond

?The Columbus Center developers have thus far spent over $400,000 on ?temporary? restoration efforts, in response to requests from the neighborhoods, the city, and the state,? the development team at CUIP-Winn Columbus Center LLC stated in an e-mail. The firm has removed barriers along Marginal Road; pushed back a fence and patched pavement on Cahners Way; fixed or replaced torn screens on several fences; and picked up litter and debris, said Carolyn Spicer, a company spokeswoman. ?We take restoration issues very seriously and are currently working with the city and state to address the additional issues raised. The economic challenges for this project are not unlike any other project in the country. This project is a priority for us, and we continue to work hard to ensure that Columbus Center moves forward as quickly as possible,? the statement said.

State transportation officials have not yet reached an agreement on what work will be done or by what date. ?We are meeting with the developers, and our goal is to have the developers clean up the site according to the neighbors? understandable concerns,? said Adam Hurtubise, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Transportation.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority has been working with the Mayor?s Office of Neighborhood Services to ensure complaints that affect city property are addressed by the developer.

?At this time, the BRA is awaiting the outcome of the state?s determination . . . of the development?s status,? said Jessica Shumaker, a BRA spokeswoman. ?In the interim, at the city level, we will continue to enforce and monitor safety and transportation issues expeditiously.?

Commissioner William Good said officials from the city?s Inspectional Services Department walked through the area last week to review complaints about improper trash disposal. Good said the department will monitor the neighborhood, though it has no plans to install security cameras, as some hoped.

As for that new air filtration system at Back Bay Station, the MBTA and state transportation officials have identified $3 million in federal stimulus funds to pay for the equipment, said T spokeswoman Lydia Rivera.

Now under federal review, the money is expected to be released in October, with a contract to follow after Jan. 1, she said.

Who?s in charge?

Secretary of Transportation James A. Aloisi Jr., Executive Office of Transportation. 10 Park Plaza. Suite 3170. Boston, MA 02116. 617-973-7000.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...columbus_center_project_complaints_intensify/
 
Re: Columbus Center

I don't blame them for being disgusted about the current situation. Even though they unknowingly contributed to it.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Suffolk 83 said:
I don't blame them for being disgusted about the current situation. Even though they unknowingly contributed to it.
Click to expand...

No, they didn?t contribute to the current situation, not at all._ Suffolk 83, you?re thinking of another proposal, or perhaps no proposal.

The residents in this article who are now up in arms about barriers, lost trees, fences, trash, weeds, etc. never contributed anything to the public meetings (2001 - 2003), and they never tried to._ They first showed interest in Columbus Center only in spring 2008, after California:_ (1) refused to sign an amended lease; (2) failed to buy $295 million in performance bonds; (3) halted work; (4) returned rental equipment; (5) abandoned the 7-acre site, and (6) refused to restore it.

Everything that bothers these residents now was decided by California, between the time that it bought the project on 15 March 2006, and the time when workers and equipment disappeared in March 2008.

These residents got involved only after the situation of which they complain had already occurred, so they had no role in causing it._ But their lack of contribution to public meetings can?t be blamed as the cause of this, because other residents of Chinatown, Back Bay, South End, and Bay Village all warned of the need to prevent such problems during years of public meetings.

On 15 May 2003, the City and the developer published a detailed, citizen-reviewed ?Construction Management Plan? which they promised would prevent such problems._ But on 26 April 2006, they quietly re-wrote it, with no public notice, to favor the City and the developer, and to disregard community concerns._ Consequently, everything negative that?s happened to the surrounding communities was done as part of a City-approved plan._ Mayor Menino feels his only duty is to supply rat poison to the site, and keep traffic moving._ He?s broken every promise for restoration that he made to residents while he toured Cortes Street ? flanked by carefully chosen supporters, smiling for the news photographers ? in April 2008.

This demonstrates why mayoral candidates Kevin McCrea, Sam Yoon, and Michael Flaherty all want urban planning moved out of the BRA and into City Hall, so mayors would be forced to share control over urban planning with city councilors and voters.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
No, they didn?t contribute to the current situation, not at all._ Suffolk 83, you?re thinking of another proposal, or perhaps no proposal.

The residents in this article who are now up in arms about barriers, lost trees, fences, trash, weeds, etc. never contributed anything to the public meetings (2001 - 2003), and they never tried to._ They first showed interest in Columbus Center only in spring 2008, after California:_ (1) refused to sign an amended lease; (2) failed to buy $295 million in performance bonds; (3) halted work; (4) returned rental equipment; (5) abandoned the 7-acre site, and (6) refused to restore it.

Everything that bothers these residents now was decided by California, between the time that it bought the project on 15 March 2006, and the time when workers and equipment disappeared in March 2008.

These residents got involved only after the situation of which they complain had already occurred, so they had no role in causing it._ But their lack of contribution to public meetings can?t be blamed as the cause of this, because other residents of Chinatown, Back Bay, South End, and Bay Village all warned of the need to prevent such problems during years of public meetings.
Click to expand...

I whole heartedly disagree. Vote, or don't complain about elected officials. Attend jury duty, or don't complain about the O.J. verdict.

Everyone must participate in the civic process, because all politics is local. The indifference of this group of citizens to come back now and say, "We've been had," is ridiculous.

Suggesting that the indifference of these neighbors had nothing to with the current situation is naive. The absence of their voice was implicit consent for everything that's gone on here, and they are just as liable for the current state of the job site as any other factor.
 
Re: Columbus Center

bbfen said:
. . . they are just as liable for the current state of the job site as any other factor.
Click to expand...

That?s untrue._ No neighbor is liable for this developer?s failure to raise capital._ Anyone who assumes that just doesn?t know the project history.

California?s investor-owners halted their own funding in 2007, Governor Patrick rescinded state funding in 2008, and every commercial bank that was asked for a loan always refused._ The $850 million never existed._ Claiming that it did, and then getting caught, is entirely the developer?s fault and liability, and is the reason that nothing was ever built, and that the job site went dead 1.5 years ago.

Hundreds of other citizens predicted this proposal would end as it has._ Their warnings were all ignored._ Adding 12 more voices from Cortes Street to the hundreds of other public comments would not have provided the missing $850 million.

The neighbors who did not offer suggestions for a site maintenance plan 6 years ago have no bearing on ? or liability for ? the proposal?s failure today._ Nothing these neighbors did, or might have done, could have prevented the current outcome.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned, I disagree with you. It's my opinion, so take it or leave it. Enough with the history lessons though.

You're saying "12 more voices" wouldn't have changed this situation. I never underestimate the power of a few people trying to change the world.

I also think you deliberately act like an obtuse mule (here and IRL). The more people get involved, the less opportunity our "city leaders" have to make decisions in an abstract vacuum. Who knows how those 12 voices would have shifted momentum in the overall project.
 
Re: Columbus Center

bbfen said:
. . . Enough with the history lessons . . .
Click to expand...

?Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.?
? poet/philosopher George Santayana
Scribner?s Magazine, 1905, page 284

bbfen said:
. . . You're saying "12 more voices" wouldn't have changed this situation. . . . Who knows how those 12 voices would have shifted momentum in the overall project.
Click to expand...

These 12 voices would not have shifted momentum at all, because they were always ? and only ? concerned with site management, which history already shows had no bearing on the project?s outcome._ When a developer lacks $850 million in capital, extra voices whining about site management are irrelevant.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I believe you mean:
"An ignorant of history is a fool to repeat it"!!!
-Bornandbred
 
Re: Columbus Center

I see my name here but it is wrong, so I must speak about it.

First, like Mr. Ned says, Santana is right. He is good musician and obviously KNOWS HIS HISTORY!!! I also agree with Mr. Ned F. that Cortes Street people are not to blame for the dead trees and cement blocks. They are not the EVIL MAGIC WOMAN, but victims of capitolist agressors (I learn about this in school) who pick on us over here to exploit our trees and air.

Second, this is all part of the RIGHTS. So I say NO to CORTES THE TREE KILLers!!!
 
Re: Columbus Center

I tend to agree with Ned on this. The Columbus Center thread reads like one long complaint implying that Ned (and/or other vocal activists like him) have scuttled the Columbus Center. Now bbfen is complaining that silent neighbors:
are just as liable for the current state of the job site as any other factor.
Click to expand...
If the Cortes Street residents had stepped up and bitched about construction mitigation during the permitting process, we'd be blaming them for scuttling the development as well.

The real problem with the Columbus Center is the rub with any air rights development: you need density to make the economics work.

MTA is fine with that - they want to maximize lease payments. But the City needs to take residents (voters) concerns into account. As permitted, the Columbus Center was less dense (on an FAR basis) than Copley. That's why it failed. Three options moving forward:
1. Leave the canyon as it is.
2. Increase the project's density.
3. Maintain or decrease density, subsidize the project..
 
Re: Columbus Center

Bostonbred: I was thinking of the dropkick murphys record label, which is Born and Bred Records haha.

But please notice the date on Ned's quote. 1905. Santana wasn't alive back then.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Thanks! Don't listen to oldies much so Dropkick Murphys are more my time than Santana. But that Mr Ned F. is either apretty old wise man with white Santa Clause beard or has LOTS of OLD 1905 Scriblers magazines stacked in the house!!!
 
Re: Columbus Center

Note:

Santayana
doesntoqueal.jpg
Santana.

And, ?those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it? is a very, very, very, very, very, very famous quote.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

Who else gets the sense that bostonbred could be Ned's less serious alter-ego foil? Mods, have we got an IP match?
 
Re: Columbus Center

AmericanFolkLegend said:
I tend to agree with Ned on this. The Columbus Center thread reads like one long complaint implying that Ned (and/or other vocal activists like him) have scuttled the Columbus Center. Now bbfen is complaining that silent neighbors: If the Cortes Street residents had stepped up and bitched about construction mitigation during the permitting process, we'd be blaming them for scuttling the development as well.
Click to expand...

Sort of, but not really. I never said they needed to bitch. Please re-read my responses to Ned. I actually think that bitching has a harmful effect on the development of Boston.



There's an inevitable march of unstoppable progress that is self-evident to those city-dwellers who accept that, for crying out loud, they live in a city that, by its nature, must be dynamic in order to be healthy.

This site has been an obvious candidate for development since the construction of the extension. If I were one of those neighbors, I would direct my efforts to those things where I thought I could make a difference.

Instead of shrieking in terror about every perceived injustice these assclowns think has been thrust upon them by the BRA since moving into the neighborhood 5, 10 or 15 years ago, I would personally have done this:

1 focus on design that mitigated negative effects and being positive about elements that seem beneficial to the community
2 try to negotiate constraints on construction to have as few adverse effects on the neighorhood as possible
3 talk (calmly and non-hysterically or zealout-like) to elected representatives, the BRA, the developers, and others with power to define post-construction conditions

In fact, I've done all of these things in the past, with success. I can't say every request of mine hsa always been met (living next to a live construction site is never a cup of tea) but sugar goes a long way toward baiting the flytrap. Or something like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top