Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

But what would excite you? . . . humane modernism . . . high-tech modernism . . . brick-clad design . . . ?

What would truly excite me, honestly, is adherence to the principles. I can?t write a prescription for design, though. I leave that to the designers.

I can point to a number of projects where this idea (sticking to the script) falls to the ground. The Hotel Commonwealth comes immediately to mind.

Yes, but the worst of it was remedied when Redevelopment officials enforced corrective measures to adhere to the original proposal.

. . . Hundreds of people . . . weren't able to prevent the FAA and Massport from green-lighting the Centerfield taxiway at Logan, a project that will have deleterious effects on my community that far exceed what Columbus Center would generate in your neighborhood (i.e. no aspect of Columbus Center will increase the capacity of the Turnpike or the rail lines). Any thoughts on that?

Some South Enders actively opposed the Centerfield taxiway, because after all, increased air traffic flies over the South End, too. It does seem that the taxiway is more damaging to more people than Columbus Center itself would be; however, remember that the principles being fought for at Columbus Center apply to all 23 parcels and all 44 acres all across town, so there?s a big legacy at stake here.

I think you'd agree that the people of East Boston, Winthrop, Chelsea, Revere, Everett, Medford, East Cambridge, and Somerville are entitled to clean air, just like you and your neighbors in the South End.
Of course everyone should have clean air, so I do sympathize with the predicament in East Boston.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Just theorizing here... indulge me for a minute...

What if the studies come back and say, you really should cap the entire Turnpike, build 40-50 story vent stacks to widely disperse the air away from the street-level residents?

Would neighbors be in favor of 40-50 story development that encapsulated/enclosed the vent structures? Or is the ultimate goal here closing all urban highways?

What are we working towards? If in ten years, auto technology has changed to the point where we are all coping with $8/gallon gas, and the highway is populated with much different vehicles, will any of this even matter?

These are all big questions. Using these big, profound, philosophical questions as a wrench to hurl at Columbus Center is unreasonable. On, next to, or across from... the question is "should urban highways be closed"? This question has nothing to do with the tiny patch of highway that these buildings will cover, when you look at the big picture that the question asks.
 
Re: Columbus Center

If gas reach $8/gallon I think highways are going to populated with weeds.

Edit: Why do I keep posting in this godforsaken thread?!?
 
Re: Columbus Center

...and Toby shall rule the highway.

tazio-1-1-1-1-1.jpg
 
Re: Columbus Center

. . . What if the studies come back and say, you really should cap the entire Turnpike . . . ? . . . Would neighbors be in favor of 40-50 story development that encapsulated/enclosed the vent structures? Or is the ultimate goal here closing all urban highways? . . . If in ten years, auto technology has changed to the point where we are all coping with $8/gallon gas, and the highway is populated with much different vehicles, will any of this even matter? . . . the question is "should urban highways be closed"? . . .

The decision to tunnel the entire turnpike within urban Boston was already made, a half century ago. No one has ever seriously objected to tunnelization. Then MTA quietly decided in 2003 that the existing pollution (far more deadly near the corridor than several blocks away from it) will get captured, concentrated, and exhausted from 14 new vents (3 open-air cavities and 11 high-speed fans).

People object to this vent scheme not to stop Columbus Center, or to stop the successor proposal that will replace it, or to stop any other proposals along I-90, or to close the transportation corridor. People object as a matter of environmental justice for those who work and live near the corridor.

No citizen should suffer such high-risk exposure simply because a state-level Authority and its for-profit business partner sacrificed public health so they could walk away with more profit. Along I-90 and I-93, tens of thousands of Bostonians are at risk.

Even if all goes well, it still will take a couple of generations to switch from fossil-fueled to hydrogen/solar-based cars, buses, trucks, and trains. Just as Bubonic Plague doesn?t matter today, diesel-based particulate matter won?t be of much consequence in the future. In the meantime, however, this invisible, odorless, tasteless exposure is harming people every day, at the cellular level.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I've always heard the air in Vermont is great - clean, fresh and healthy. I've also always heard that air in major metropolitan cities is not as clean, fresh or healthy.

Again, what is the ultimate goal here? Close the highways? Eradicate vehicles? Cap and vent all highways with massive scrubbing stations? What about the traffic on congested thoroughfares like Boylston Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Mass Ave? And what do with the Prudential Center? Copley Place? Shutter them? Demolish them so the highways can breathe freely?
The city air is dirty - it's a worldwide phenomena completely and totally unrelated to the construction on a small patch of downtown Boston at Columbus Center.

These such huge, major questions. However, in relation to Columbus Center specifically, they are just a stalling technique for one little real estate project.

Not that it's worked - it's important to note that this whole "UFP angle" has been undertaken by neighbors who will have their views blocked by a shiny new tower next door. These aren't environmentalists, these are some of Boston's wealthiest, most elite citizens with the time and money on their hands to fight to maintain their multi-million dollar views. These people are far removed from "environmentalists". These are the same people that populate all the same meetings to stall all progressive growth and development in our city.

I'm not arguing that air pollution in the city isn't an issue - it has been since the 1700s and the days of open sewers. Air pollution in the city -any city- will always be a problem. What does this have to do with Columbus Center? Well, everything - and also nothing at all.

Growth, progress and economic development in the city will always change and alter as we strive for a better, cleaner society. You can't just close the highways, roads, and train lines, shutter air rights developments, construct giant scrubbing stations and put a moratorium on all construction and development near any roadway. Ultimately, isn't that the basis and goal of the so-called "UFP argument" against Columbus Center?
 
Re: Columbus Center

But you can electrify train lines -- and that would be a major improvement.
 
Re: Columbus Center

. . . Again, what is the ultimate goal here? Cap and vent all highways with massive scrubbing stations?

Two goals are underway.
Goal 1 (tunnelize Boston?s entire turnpike) was decided in 1962, by society at large, in public.
Goal 2 (vent the pollution from below into communities above) was decided in 2003, by MTA, in secret.

. . . What about the traffic on congested thoroughfares like Boylston Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Mass Ave?
The solution there is cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels. On open-air thoroughfares, vent filtration isn't practical because there is no tunnel to house it.

. . . And what do with the Prudential Center? Copley Place?

MTA?s air pollution exhaust vents have been operating continuously at Prudential Center since 1963, at Hancock Garage since 1969, and at Copley Place since 1984. Because those 3 vents have been harming public health for years, MTA should remediate them even before it remediates the Columbus Center vents.

. . . city air is dirty - it's a worldwide phenomena completely and totally unrelated to the construction on a small patch of downtown Boston at Columbus Center. . .

No, not at all. Air pollution may be common, but MTA?s decision is unheard of: capture, concentrate, and exhaust air pollution from tunnels below into existing communities above, in high-speed, continuous doses. MTA?s decision is an intrinsic, fundamental part of the design that MTA encouraged and approved for Columbus Center.

. . . this whole "UFP angle" has been undertaken by neighbors who will have their views blocked by a shiny new tower next door . . .

That?s untrue. Over 13 years, not one of the people now concerned about this issue were ever concerned about future views. All the public comment records prove this.

. . . These people are far removed from "environmentalists".

That?s also untrue. While most of those concerned about air pollution represent a cross section of average people, a few are professionally involved in environmental issues.

What you?re really saying is this: average citizens are not entitled to have public health concerns unless they become environmentalists first. Telling people that they have to get certified if they want to care about their health is profoundly elitist.

. . . These are the same people that populate all the same meetings to stall all progressive growth and development in our city.

That?s also untrue. The vast majority of the people who are most concerned with MTA?s air pollution have virtually no history at public meetings on Columbus Center. It wouldn?t matter anyway, though, because MTA and CWCC never publicly admitted to the exhust vents, and instead just designed and approved them in secret.

What you call ?progressive growth? (pollution without remediation) is actually regressive growth (private profit over public health). In your arithmetic, developers? personal profit should outweigh public health and well being.

When you speak of ?our? city you?re saying the city belongs only to you and those like you who want it changed the way that you want it changed, and you?re saying that the city doesn?t belong at all to anyone who feels differently than you do. That?s quite elitist.

You can't just close the highways, roads, and train lines, shutter air rights developments, construct giant scrubbing stations and put a moratorium on all construction and development near any roadway.

Response - Closing transportation corridors is not possible, but cleansing the air vents is possible, and building away from pollution sources is already being done successfully in California.

Side note - The development industry commonly uses the tactic you used above: lump possible ideas among impossible ones in order to hide the credible ones from further consideration. If you don?t believe me, attend one of the industry-sponsored classes where they teach ways to deceive the public, the government, and the media.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Can you point us to a currently operating example of scrubbing air vents? I'd like to see this done as well, but I don't know if current technology is up to the task.

Is there a difference between the I-90 air vents (current and proposed) and the air vents for other local tunnels such as Callahan, Sumner, Ted Williams, City Square, and I-93 (O'Neill)?
 
Re: Columbus Center

Can you point us to a currently operating example of scrubbing air vents? I'd like to see this done as well, but I don't know if current technology is up to the task.

Is there a difference between the I-90 air vents (current and proposed) and the air vents for other local tunnels such as Callahan, Sumner, Ted Williams, City Square, and I-93 (O'Neill)?

Nobody scrubs vents. This was discussed a bunch of pages back. The volume of air you would have to scrub would require a building that would rival Tommy's Tower in size, at enormous operating cost. It would be far cheaper to buy and demolish Ned's condo.

The emerging abatement strategies for fine particulates and UFPs is greater control of emissions from diesel engines, and/or restricting the use of diesel trucks on certain highways in certain areas. But Boston's climate is far different than Southern California, so the abatement stategies being devised there may not be needed in Massachusetts.

In any event, somebody driving their car on a daily downtown Boston commute will have far more exposure to these pollutants than somebody living in a mid-rise tower on Clarendon St.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

OK, but since Ned is the one who says this technology is feasible ("cleansing the air vents is possible"), I'd like him to point me to a current example.

How do other urban highway tunnels deal with this problem? (NYC East and Hudson rivers, Baltimore harbor, DC under the Mall, Detroit-Windsor, Oakland-Alameda, others?)
 
Re: Columbus Center

What Ned wants is a utopia. A perfect city where nothing can harm you. I don't know about you but I think that there is always a sacrifice in order to progress. I don't see any problems in any other major cities involving this, only Boston. Fact is fact, there is, and will be pollution over the pike no matter whether or not you pave over it or not. If the pollution is vented, it will spread above ground regardless.

I think a good way for CC to get the necessary funding for this project is use this offer:

If you want clean air, pay us the money to build a feasible vent that can scrub the air. If you cannot pay, shut the hell up because building an advance scrubbing vent is NOT FEASIBLE. If it was, then CC should not be in money trouble right now without the advance vents that Ned speak of.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I am enjoying all this back-and-forth, and this whole argument does raise some very big questions. It's almost philosophical at this point.

This whole discussion about UFPs, pollution, and the future of our transportation modes, city life and progress really belongs on a separate thread.

It's important to note that Columbus Center is approved, enjoys wide-spread support, and will be built once this pesky thing called "the epic, worldwide financial markets melt-down" has subsided. The UFP talk is fun - but until the capital markets stop vomiting red ink, Columbus Center will remain on hold - in all it's breath-taking (pun intended) glory.

If we were to talk about the development itself there's nothing to debate. That debate was held years ago and that debate is over. Winn & Partners got their permits, enjoy the support of 73%-approval-rating Menino, and are ready to build and should be congratulated on their intestinal fortitude throughout the process.

The only questions that remain are when will they get financing, how will they get financing, and should the project be scrapped due to the worldwide financial market melt-down, or should it be put on hold until the financial markets bounce back?

UFPs? Pollution? Shadows? Height? Density? Those debates are over. At least they are everywhere expect, apparently, on this little architecture board.
 
Re: Columbus Center

When you speak of ?our? city you?re saying the city belongs only to you and those like you who want it changed the way that you want it changed, and you?re saying that the city doesn?t belong at all to anyone who feels differently than you do. That?s quite elitist.

Posted 100% irony free.
 
Re: Columbus Center

^^^I really do dislike hypocrites.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Those debates are over.

Except the debate over whether the project should receive public subsidy, and if so, how much. Disputes over that question seem to have sunk the project, at least temporarily.
 
Re: Columbus Center

A practical suggestion: I was away for a few days, and I would much prefer to be able to check for news or pictures on CC without having to scroll through page upon page of UFP theology. Can one or the other be hived off to a separate thread?

justin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top