Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
- Status
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I'm certain I live closer to this project than the NeimanMarcusNIMBY does....on Columbus just a few buildings down from Dartmouth. I wholeheartedly support this project and I agree that it is something that Boston needs. It will replace an eye sore plaza with a truly good looking building and hopefully add some life to a stretch of Dartmouth that could use some. AND this is pretty much the ideal location in Boston in terms of transit.
I've been lurking here for a long time and I figured that now was as good a time as any to join in.
I'm certain I live closer to this project than the NeimanMarcusNIMBY does....on Columbus just a few buildings down from Dartmouth. I wholeheartedly support this project and I agree that it is something that Boston needs. It will replace an eye sore plaza with a truly good looking building and hopefully add some life to a stretch of Dartmouth that could use some. AND this is pretty much the ideal location in Boston in terms of transit.
I've been lurking here for a long time and I figured that now was as good a time as any to join in.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
It's amazing to me how fringe groups can so often shape an entire debate. This project has broad support - each time it has been put on hold there has been a collective moan, and each time it is brought back to the table there's a collective sigh of relief. And yet, NMWatch shows up on Archboston and begins laying the groundwork of arguments that range everywhere from wind-shadows-traffic to thirty year old lawsuits to social stratification.
What's the point of him/her coming here into a pro-development community? Is it to try and convince us? No. The reason is to shape the discourse, the way we and Boston at large talk about the project. Suddenly it's gone from a slam dunk to something that is "disputed" or "controversial" or "a target of local activists" ... and no doubt that if NMWatch continues to draw attention here and on other forums/media, that the Globe and Herald will begin reporting about the project using exactly these terms. So, by fanning the debate, we are playing in entirely into this.
The solution? NOT to nitpick the points - lessons from Ned prove this is counterproductive, and puts our community here on the defensive. The solution in my mind is much more pro-active rather than reactive advocacy for development. We've talked about this before, but it's much more urgent now that the economy may be turning and we're seeing more projects come to concrete proposals for comment and review. We have the positive, pro-active talking points. Are we doing everything we can to promote these points to shape the debate ourselves? Probably not, and certainly when someone like NMWatch shows up with a laundry list of paranoid rants and makes us quake in our boots that Columbus Center 2.0 has begun, it really makes me wonder.
It's amazing to me how fringe groups can so often shape an entire debate. This project has broad support - each time it has been put on hold there has been a collective moan, and each time it is brought back to the table there's a collective sigh of relief. And yet, NMWatch shows up on Archboston and begins laying the groundwork of arguments that range everywhere from wind-shadows-traffic to thirty year old lawsuits to social stratification.
What's the point of him/her coming here into a pro-development community? Is it to try and convince us? No. The reason is to shape the discourse, the way we and Boston at large talk about the project. Suddenly it's gone from a slam dunk to something that is "disputed" or "controversial" or "a target of local activists" ... and no doubt that if NMWatch continues to draw attention here and on other forums/media, that the Globe and Herald will begin reporting about the project using exactly these terms. So, by fanning the debate, we are playing in entirely into this.
The solution? NOT to nitpick the points - lessons from Ned prove this is counterproductive, and puts our community here on the defensive. The solution in my mind is much more pro-active rather than reactive advocacy for development. We've talked about this before, but it's much more urgent now that the economy may be turning and we're seeing more projects come to concrete proposals for comment and review. We have the positive, pro-active talking points. Are we doing everything we can to promote these points to shape the debate ourselves? Probably not, and certainly when someone like NMWatch shows up with a laundry list of paranoid rants and makes us quake in our boots that Columbus Center 2.0 has begun, it really makes me wonder.
I
InTheHood
Guest
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I'd strongly recommend that those in favor of this project who live in the Back Bay pick up pen (or keyboard) to write Marty Walz.
As we well know from other squabbles, Ms Walz has been the political patron saint of the downtown NIMBYs. (E.g., she was anti-Columbus Center, she's responsible for the ludicrous shadow law proposal, she kicked up a ruckus over the original Suffolk development plans, and she even led the chorus to have the poor DCR remove some cherry trees from the Esplanade when some loud-mouth and deep-pocketed Beacon Street residents moaned about the potential loss of river views). The one notable project she did give her blessing to was the Druker proposal to demolish the Shreve building, once it was made bland enough - it wasn't tall, of course, and Druker contributes generously to the Dem Party and socializes with the Back Bay crowd, so he pretty much has a "lifetime pass," irrespective of his disregard for streetscape or history.
Nevertheless, it has always seemed to me that Saint Marty's inconguous fixation with suburban development priorities has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with kissing the butts of a few elderly NIMBYs. She's pretty clueless about development economics, but she's not unintelligent, and she's visibly uncomfortable in meetings whenever someone has the temerity to point out that transit-oriented development is "green" and should be promoted by a so-called progressive politician. Density is a good thing. Absent the new construction in the past decade, central Boston as a whole would have lost population in the last decade (as did Beacon Hill and the fully restricted parts of the Back Bay). If you force development away from the city, you get more traffic, more pollution, and fewer residents to support obvious ameneties like supermarkets that city residents are always whining about. Obvious points that need to be repeated.
I believe that the more pro-development correspondence Marty receives, and the more that she is "called out" in public meetings, the less reflexive and less vocal she will be in parroting the NIMBY position. The impact of new shadows cast by this tower will be exceedingly modest. The existing corner is a pedestrian dead zone. There is no public money involved, that I can see, nor does this have any impact on expanding the "student menace" ... in other words, the project is blessedly bereft of many potential anti-development supporting arguments. Marty cannot be unaware that if she comes out against literally every development over 10 floors tall within walking distance of her district, she comes across as foolish and loses credibility ... and it also won't hurt to remind her that the pro-density greens are younger and more numerous than the blue-haired Marlborough Street residents who have guided her public positions so often in the past. The NIMBYs have a fair bit of money, and many have oodles of time, but at some point a politician needs to look forward.
I'd strongly recommend that those in favor of this project who live in the Back Bay pick up pen (or keyboard) to write Marty Walz.
As we well know from other squabbles, Ms Walz has been the political patron saint of the downtown NIMBYs. (E.g., she was anti-Columbus Center, she's responsible for the ludicrous shadow law proposal, she kicked up a ruckus over the original Suffolk development plans, and she even led the chorus to have the poor DCR remove some cherry trees from the Esplanade when some loud-mouth and deep-pocketed Beacon Street residents moaned about the potential loss of river views). The one notable project she did give her blessing to was the Druker proposal to demolish the Shreve building, once it was made bland enough - it wasn't tall, of course, and Druker contributes generously to the Dem Party and socializes with the Back Bay crowd, so he pretty much has a "lifetime pass," irrespective of his disregard for streetscape or history.
Nevertheless, it has always seemed to me that Saint Marty's inconguous fixation with suburban development priorities has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with kissing the butts of a few elderly NIMBYs. She's pretty clueless about development economics, but she's not unintelligent, and she's visibly uncomfortable in meetings whenever someone has the temerity to point out that transit-oriented development is "green" and should be promoted by a so-called progressive politician. Density is a good thing. Absent the new construction in the past decade, central Boston as a whole would have lost population in the last decade (as did Beacon Hill and the fully restricted parts of the Back Bay). If you force development away from the city, you get more traffic, more pollution, and fewer residents to support obvious ameneties like supermarkets that city residents are always whining about. Obvious points that need to be repeated.
I believe that the more pro-development correspondence Marty receives, and the more that she is "called out" in public meetings, the less reflexive and less vocal she will be in parroting the NIMBY position. The impact of new shadows cast by this tower will be exceedingly modest. The existing corner is a pedestrian dead zone. There is no public money involved, that I can see, nor does this have any impact on expanding the "student menace" ... in other words, the project is blessedly bereft of many potential anti-development supporting arguments. Marty cannot be unaware that if she comes out against literally every development over 10 floors tall within walking distance of her district, she comes across as foolish and loses credibility ... and it also won't hurt to remind her that the pro-density greens are younger and more numerous than the blue-haired Marlborough Street residents who have guided her public positions so often in the past. The NIMBYs have a fair bit of money, and many have oodles of time, but at some point a politician needs to look forward.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 11
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
As someone who is occasionally in the lonely minority here at ArchBoston, I strongly disagree with any attempt to ban someone for expressing an unpopular point of view.
As someone who is occasionally in the lonely minority here at ArchBoston, I strongly disagree with any attempt to ban someone for expressing an unpopular point of view.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I completely agree. I was lurking aB during the Ned days and remember Briv reversing actions taken by other moderators against Ned, such as reopening the CC thread.
I think it's absolutely unfair and even absurd to claim that someone with an opposing (and/or unfavorable) opinion is "hijacking" a thread. At least he's voicing his opinion with complete ideas and good grammar. He's also being polite and not resorting to name-calling.
I completely agree. I was lurking aB during the Ned days and remember Briv reversing actions taken by other moderators against Ned, such as reopening the CC thread.
I think it's absolutely unfair and even absurd to claim that someone with an opposing (and/or unfavorable) opinion is "hijacking" a thread. At least he's voicing his opinion with complete ideas and good grammar. He's also being polite and not resorting to name-calling.
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I give all points of view a thorough reading. I have read NMwatch's posts and judging based on the points he/she made I have concluded that the fewer NMWatch's Boston has in the future the better.
The only thing I came away with from reading his/her posts is that NMWatch has a serious financial envy complex and is a Luddite.
I give all points of view a thorough reading. I have read NMwatch's posts and judging based on the points he/she made I have concluded that the fewer NMWatch's Boston has in the future the better.
The only thing I came away with from reading his/her posts is that NMWatch has a serious financial envy complex and is a Luddite.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Not surprised that another highrise development project in Boston, especially in the Back Bay area, has a local resident bitching and moaning. You people suck. IF you don't want development and towers in a big city environment, then don't live in a big city.
Not surprised that another highrise development project in Boston, especially in the Back Bay area, has a local resident bitching and moaning. You people suck. IF you don't want development and towers in a big city environment, then don't live in a big city.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
My already bad mood is now x10.
More than 50% of the "neighborhood", however defined (South End, Back Bay) would most certainly support this proposal, of that I am positive. Not that it should be a matter of winning a popular vote, but I can't see many people complaining about this project.
The size is the only legit complaint; 47-stories is a bit tall for the area, and does set precedent. That it is much closer to the "spine" than the hotel proposed for Columbus Center is its saving grace.
As a "neighbor", I wholeheartedly support the proposal.
My already bad mood is now x10.
More than 50% of the "neighborhood", however defined (South End, Back Bay) would most certainly support this proposal, of that I am positive. Not that it should be a matter of winning a popular vote, but I can't see many people complaining about this project.
The size is the only legit complaint; 47-stories is a bit tall for the area, and does set precedent. That it is much closer to the "spine" than the hotel proposed for Columbus Center is its saving grace.
As a "neighbor", I wholeheartedly support the proposal.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,887
- Reaction score
- 3,716
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Welcome! And I'll jump in to represent the folks who work nearby. Ned's aesthetics argument is entirely bogus. We like working in this area because it is vibrant and dense.
Welcome! And I'll jump in to represent the folks who work nearby. Ned's aesthetics argument is entirely bogus. We like working in this area because it is vibrant and dense.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
47 really isn't that bad for the area. The Westin CP is 36 stories and the Marriott CP is 38. The Pru is 52 and the Hancock at 60 is arguably the odd-man out (this is in no way criticizing the Hancock, which is a personal favorite). The 47-storey mark should seem to blend right in with the already existing vertical fabric of the Copley Sq area. When viewed from the south, there would be a stepping effect 38-47-60.
GW2500
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,087
- Reaction score
- 117
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I think the real question is why is Boston so god damn scared of 50 plus stories in appropriate areas. Every time I hear an argument against it, it always just comes off as either idiotic, whiny bitching, or both ("dah I don't like that"). Do people in Back Bay not notice the 2 legit sky scrapers that are already there and in fact do they ruin your life? And this whole setting precedence is bull IMO. Just cause you build one tower doesn't mean others will automatically sprout up. Building one tower is in fact just building one tower. Others would have to go through the development process, and a need would have to be there as well. And finally there are a million places to live where no towers are present. If towers bother you 99% of the land dose not have them.
I think the real question is why is Boston so god damn scared of 50 plus stories in appropriate areas. Every time I hear an argument against it, it always just comes off as either idiotic, whiny bitching, or both ("dah I don't like that"). Do people in Back Bay not notice the 2 legit sky scrapers that are already there and in fact do they ruin your life? And this whole setting precedence is bull IMO. Just cause you build one tower doesn't mean others will automatically sprout up. Building one tower is in fact just building one tower. Others would have to go through the development process, and a need would have to be there as well. And finally there are a million places to live where no towers are present. If towers bother you 99% of the land dose not have them.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Do you mean The Garage at 100 Clarendon?
I was thinking about this last night. Thank god the Hancock was built when it was. It would never have even been built if it were being proposed now, especially since it set the precedent in height for the future. Without the Hancock towering over Copley Sq (in a completely elegant way, might I add), this 47-storey building would in-fact be rather jarring for the area, but that is not the case.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Yeah, it could be worse, though I think the producers of this series underestimated the zeal of the NABB.
Yeah, it could be worse, though I think the producers of this series underestimated the zeal of the NABB.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Lol, John posted that in the Open Thread last week. (The photo link broke a few days after)
But coming back to Copley Pl, you can clearly see how nicely a 47-storey building would balance out the Pru from that vantage point.
Lol, John posted that in the Open Thread last week. (The photo link broke a few days after)
But coming back to Copley Pl, you can clearly see how nicely a 47-storey building would balance out the Pru from that vantage point.
- Status