Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Regarding the need to create more jobs in 2011 for unemployed architects, perhaps some kind of "Architects For Affordable Housing" group could be formed which worked to create some kind of publicly-funded "Rebuild America" or "Rebuild Massachusetts" massive affordable housing and modernized green factory construction program (funded by increased taxation of the 1% and Wall Street)?

Already happened in the Cost-More-Than-The-Entire-Iraq-War 'Stimulus'. Though most of the money didn't go to the architecture firms doing the work, but rather to WMBE gaming contractors, supplier extortion through "buy American" provisions, and other general graft from the requirements to exclusively use union labor. Sadly because of political malfeasance infrastructure spending has become a joke with very little of the money ever getting used productively anymore.

The 1%, and in fact most of the children's children of the 99%, will be paying the interest on the debt service on both those capital spending campaigns for longer than I care to imagine.

Green factory production program? Yes, those have worked out so well for taxpayers. Might as well burn cash and collect the carbon. Likely a smaller footprint from this too!

Affordable housing is a crock. The "affordable part" comes from making someone elses' housing more expensive to pay for it. Why the government should be building more housing in a collapsed housing market, with more confiscated private money no one has left, is beyond me too.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Do you also wonder why nobody who is educated would takes the activist's complaints seriously? Because these letters of complaint that you guys lodge contains no facts, only assumptions. The traffic and pedestrian conflicts will increase based on what study? If an increase in foot traffic automatically leads to automobile/pedestrian accidents, NYC would have a fatal collision at every single intersection. How will access to the shop be constrained when according to the rendering, a new entrance is built where the existing one is located. The project itself is not responsible for aligning bike lanes and roads. If you want to lodge a complaint about that, you send it to the mayor. Does the writer even know what indecipherable mean? I'm assuming that the writer is claiming that the winter garden will no longer be distinguishable from the Southwest Corridor Park. And....? So what? Most people who use the Southwest Corridor Park do not care about it. People use that corridor to get to one place or another. All of these concerns are absolutely unfounded with no factual data supporting it.

Response: The study was done by "architect Ken Kruckemeyer, a long-time Holyoke Street resident and affiliate member of the Tent City Corporation Board, who managed the SW Corridor project in the 1970s," according to the recent southendnews.com article. Decreasing the width of the sidewalk adjacent to Dartmouth Street (a sidewalk already narrower than the typical Manhattan sidewalks) is expected to force more foot traffic into the narrow Dartmouth Street. The proposed changes in the SW Corridor Park is expected to make it more difficult for "people who use that park to get to one place or another" by walking through the park. Both local neighborhood residents and people who work in the neighborhood or wait at the number 10 bus stop often spend time in this SW Corridor Park park on a daily basis and don't want it changed just to benefit the special, commercial/corporate Wall Street interests of the 1% that control Neiman Marcus and Simon Property.

And the study you mentioned or at least the summary you provided did not prove in any way that there will be a significant increase in pedestrian and traffic conflicts. Also, it's hardly believable the study is at any where true with the statement, "The proposed changes in the SW Corridor Park is expected to make it more difficult for 'people who use that park to get to one place or another' by walking through the park." There are more proportionally more people (and I can't believe I'm saying this) that use the Rose Kennedy Greenway than the SW Corridor and the RFKG is no where congested that people are obstructed from passing through or enjoying the park. I use the SW Corridor often since it goes by my apartment on Columbus Ave and I am often unnerved by the lack of foot traffic, especially at night. At time I feel that it is sketchier than the Esplanade.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

The passage of time is always a useful perspective on things like these -- e.g. evolution form what had preceded the extension of the Turnpike, to Copley Place, Tent City and now the New Tower

Coincidentlaly -- last night I attended a party for an elderly friend at his son-in-laws's house in a nice part of Lexington

The discussion turned to the 3 new houses (McMansions") being built all around the house in question -- on one side the McMansion has just sold for $3.2 M, while on another side -- still under construction -- will be 8,000 sq. ft. with 8 baths on a lot which once housed a typical 1960's vintage suburban house (e.g. 2+ baths about 1500 sq. ft.)

The discussion became particularly interesting when it turned out that one of the friends of the guest of honor had been the builder of the very houses which had been leveled to make room for the "McMansions" -- as well as the house in which we were partying

he (the retired builder/developer) pointed out that in the early 1960's -- that as a developer of a few typical middleclass houses per yeat -- that to differentiate his houses -- he had added some "luxury touches" (e.g. leaded-glass windows, cove moulding, chair rails) not typically found in the first-time buyer houses being built in Lexington at the time -- some of the other builders who had bought some of the adjacent recently subdivided lots -- had complained (NIMBY-like) about the "added features" being out-of-place!

Now the old builder was surverying the results of 50 years of evolution of the neighborhood which just before being subdivided in 1960 had been a carrot farm -- he was both amazed at the McMansions and pleased that the neighborhood still was a desireable place to live -- albeit with a different kind of client than 50 years ago -- BUT mst of all he was happy that his craftmanship was still functional 50 years and appreciated by the homeowner 50 years later -- even in the midst of McMansions
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I don't think the Occupy folks will appreciate your attempt to appropriate their rhetoric.

If you check out the "Who Rules Boston?" pamphlet from the 1980s (that some local 1980s activists wrote), you'll notice that years before the occupy wall street/occupy harvard folks again pointed out how the Wall Street-linked 1 percent have been wrecking the U.S. economy by their financial speculation activity, Boston activists were already pointing out how the Wall Street-linked 1% in Boston--via its power elite governing group that was nicknamed "The Vault"--was waging class warfare against 99% of the people who live in Boston's various neighborhoods.

And if you check out the Occupy Boston/Occupy Harvard scenes in 2011, you'll also find that most of the Occupy folks--like most residents of the Back Bay, South End and other neighborhoods in Boston--don't want to see Simon Property's' "Neiman-Marcus Wall Street Tower" and its "Wall Street Glass-Walled Winter Garden" added to Wall Street's Copley Place in 2012 as part of a reconstructed Copley Place project.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

The taxes from this 'wall street' tower will help defer some of the cost of all those free loaders in tent city.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I really think this is a misuse of the Occupy movement's "99%" rhetoric. Most of the people involved in that movement have little or no opinion about this development.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Why is this a "Wall Street" tower? Because Simon Property Group is a publicly traded company? Are people against that? Would they rather 100% of the profit went to one person. I'm sort of confused by what this building has to do with trading practices on Wall Street and the big banks or whatever it is Occupy Wall Street is protesting.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

It's an indication to me that NMW is either a low talent troll, are barely understands both the issues of this building and those of the Occupy movement.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

If you check out the "Who Rules Boston?" pamphlet from the 1980s (that some local 1980s activists wrote), you'll notice that years before the occupy wall street/occupy harvard folks again pointed out how the Wall Street-linked 1 percent have been wrecking the U.S. economy by their financial speculation activity, Boston activists were already pointing out how the Wall Street-linked 1% in Boston--via its power elite governing group that was nicknamed "The Vault"--was waging class warfare against 99% of the people who live in Boston's various neighborhoods.

And if you check out the Occupy Boston/Occupy Harvard scenes in 2011, you'll also find that most of the Occupy folks--like most residents of the Back Bay, South End and other neighborhoods in Boston--don't want to see Simon Property's' "Neiman-Marcus Wall Street Tower" and its "Wall Street Glass-Walled Winter Garden" added to Wall Street's Copley Place in 2012 as part of a reconstructed Copley Place project.

So you will be funding the tower yourself then, right?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

It's an indication to me that NMW is either a low talent troll, are barely understands both the issues of this building and those of the Occupy movement.

Or he has no friends. This guy is literally the anti-Ned Flaherty. No facts, opinionated responses, ignorant, and just sounds plain dumb. At least Ned was very thorough to the point that many of his arguments were not refutable. NMW's statements are so blatantly ridiculous that you can easily refute it without needing to do research.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

If you check out the "Who Rules Boston?...Wall Street-linked 1% in Boston--via its power elite governing group that was nicknamed "The Vault"--was waging class warfare against 99% of the people who live in Boston's various neighborhoods.

And if you check out the Occupy Boston/Occupy Harvard scenes in 2011, you'll also find that most of the Occupy folks--like most residents of the Back Bay, South End and other neighborhoods in Boston--don't want to see Simon Property's' "Neiman-Marcus Wall Street Tower" and its "Wall Street Glass-Walled Winter Garden" added to Wall Street's Copley Place in 2012 as part of a reconstructed Copley Place project.

NeedlessMarkup -- That's what everyone always in-toned under their breath when someone mentiond NM -- well you have through your posts with their random spurts of phrases raised the NeedlessM to a new level of irrelevance

the Vault was in point of fact the group of people who with private capital transformed over about 30 years -- moribund decaying old piers and warehouses into the vibrant Boston of today

No sentient being gives a cats petuty about "most of the Occupy folks ... don't want to see Simon Property's' "Neiman-Marcus Wall Street Tower" and its "Wall Street Glass-Walled Winter Garden" added to Wall Street's Copley Place in 2012 as part of a reconstructed Copley Place project"

If the useless and clueless 1% (reasonable guess as to who makes up the Occupation) really wanted to influence the world for the better -- they'd donate their tents to some of the people who have been rendered homeless by mother nature (several places in the world) and join the Peace Corps
 
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I'm with Ron on how inappropriate it is to hijack the OWS rhetoric for their own pet cause.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Things Tent City residents don't like: The Copley Place condo tower.

Also? Voting, apparently.

From Tuesday's results:

Lowest % turnout in District 2 was from Ward 4 Precinct 2, which includes Tent City.

Ad8KHS1CEAAdZOJ.png
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Lengthy Globe article on the opposition, what Simon is doing with respect to offsets and mitigation, etc.

http://www.boston.com/business/arti...wer_planned_near_copley_square/?p1=News_links

Interesting that there are shadows on Copley Square, and the friends of the square ask that Simon pay $20,000 a year to help maintain the square (as opposed to Simon's one-time payment of $200,000).

From what Peter Meade is quoted as saying, I will opine that its going to be approved.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Lengthy Globe article on the opposition, what Simon is doing with respect to offsets and mitigation, etc.

http://www.boston.com/business/arti...wer_planned_near_copley_square/?p1=News_links

Interesting that there are shadows on Copley Square, and the friends of the square ask that Simon pay $20,000 a year to help maintain the square (as opposed to Simon's one-time payment of $200,000).

From what Peter Meade is quoted as saying, I will opine that its going to be approved.

All you need to do is ask the guys at the various trade-local halls

We know that any project of this scale in Boston is all union -- hence the only three things that matter:

1) does the developer have deep-enough pockets -- that would be a check
2) do the IBEW, Plumbers, Iron workers (Stevey Lynch's old buds), Operaing Engineers, Carpenters, etc. need work pretty bad -- that would be a check
3) is there a promise of a kick-back -- er linkage funds -- that would be a check

Are there 3 checks -- then its likely to be approved
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Objections rise over tower plan

Neighbors say 47-floor residential building would clog traffic, darken Copley Square
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / November 11, 2011

A proposal to build Boston’s tallest residential building in the Back Bay is generating objections from neighbors and public officials, who argue the project would worsen traffic problems, darken Copley Square with shadows, and skimp on public art and affordable housing.

Tweet 1 person Tweeted thisShareThis Related
Construction projects in the Boston areaSeveral groups have written to the Boston Redevelopment Authority in recent days to say those issues must be addressed before Simon Property Group can move forward with its plan for a 47-story tower at Copley Place.

The developer, headquartered in Indianapolis, responded to some of the concerns late yesterday.

Simon told the BRA that it will double, to 10, the number of affordable units in the $500 million tower. It is also negotiating the purchase of a building in the South End where it will create another 35 affordable units, to comply with city regulations.

It also agreed to increase to $1 million its contribution for public art in the neighborhood, as long as it is allowed to help select the art.

Still, Democratic state Representative Byron Rushing, whose district includes the construction site, said Simon would meet only the city’s minimum requirements on affordable housing. He said Simon should build affordable units equaling 25 percent of the total project, instead of the 15 percent minimum.

“This is a big project by a big firm . . . and they are going to come in and try to do this as cheaply as possible,’’ Rushing said. “The BRA shouldn’t be part of that. They should be on the community’s side, asking for more.’’

The continued objections threaten to derail Simon’s plan to begin construction next spring on the last big part of the Copley Place development.

A multi-tiered glass tower, designed by Elkus Manfredi Architects of Boston, would contain 318 condominiums, space for an expanded Neiman Marcus store, and additional restaurants and shops.

It would be among the largest new buildings in the city in recent decades and would provide hundreds of jobs for construction workers hit hard by the economic downturn.

The BRA’s director, Peter Meade, said the authority is reviewing the proposal and has not decided whether to schedule it for a vote at its next board meeting, on Nov. 17. Meade said the BRA has pushed the developer for affordable housing as well for improvements in public spaces.

“There is no question that we are doing what we can in terms of making sure this developer lives up to its responsibilities, and that includes the affordable housing part of it,’’ Meade said. He added that Simon has promised to spend large sums to upgrade parks and build an indoor public garden.

“I think at the end of the day most reasonable people will see that this developer will be making a significant contribution to many of the parks and projects around that area,’’ Meade said.Continued...

Jack Hobbs, an executive with Simon’s project manager, Collaborative Partners of Boston, said the developer will continue to work with the neighbors. But he added that Simon needs to know its project can move forward before it commits to resolving smaller details, such as in park designs.

“You can only go so far spending time and money addressing these issues before you even know you have a project,’’ Hobbs said. “We expect that everyone will come together and agree on the proper solutions, but that’s not going to happen overnight; it’s going to happen during a design process that will take many months.’’

He also said financial constraints limit how many affordable units Simon can include in the project.

But some neighbors worry that Simon will be less motivated to respond to the community once it receives BRA approval.

Typically, the authority grants approval for the broad outlines of a project, then irons out design details over a period of months.

Rushing said the BRA should withhold all approvals until Simon files additional documents showing the number of affordable housing units it will build, as well as how it will handle wind, shadows, and increased traffic at the busy intersection of Dartmouth and Stuart streets.

Those and other concerns were outlined in a letter sent to the BRA by Rushing, Democratic state Representative Martha Walz of Boston, and other community leaders.

In addition, the Boston Parks and Recreation Department wrote last month that the project would harm Copley Square by casting shadows across the park during the middle of the day in fall and winter. The parks department noted that the square is already affected by shadows from several other buildings.

“Adding two more hours of shadow to this space . . . when days are shorter and cooler is a significant negative impact that will make the park less hospitable,’’ said a letter from Liza Meyer, chief landscape architect for the parks department.

Hobbs did not contest that new shadows would be cast on the park but said they would be within the city’s guidelines.

“We’ve been under all the BRA thresholds,’’ he said. “You cannot build a building without some impact. There needs to be a sense of what’s reasonable.’’

The citizens committee reviewing the project asked Simon to make a $20,000 annual contribution to a group that maintains Copley Square “as a mitigating measure for the new shadows.’’ The committee also requested a $20,000 annual contribution for maintenance of the nearby Southwest Corridor Park.

Simon is already committed to redesigning the entryway of the Southwest Corridor Park and has offered a one-time $250,000 payment for maintenance. It is offering a $200,000 payment for Copley Square.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.


http://www.boston.com/business/arti...from_tower_planned_near_copley_square/?page=2
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^ "and skimp on public art"

Uhh- is public art a requirement for new developments now??? Or do we have people who think they're entitled to public art demands?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I am all for affordable housing, but I think this article really helped bring home the idea for me that the city's current policy is great in theory but bad in practice. There should be decent housing for people that do the lower wage jobs in many of these buildings, but, as has been said by others, the practice of having luxury condos chip into affordable housing is not working. It makes the price of nice places (although i could never afford this place) more expensive and adds to the affordable housing stock, cutting out the people in the middle.

I think of something like seaport and downtown, which is building apartments that will be $2k a month for one beds. That's pricey. If they didn't have to meet their affordable requirements, could they do one beds at a much more reasonable $1500? I think if we had a incoming politician that could articulate (and study if this is in fact the case), I think many would support it.

[also, can we keep the ensuing conversation away from things like herald comment pages:"politicians are trying to buy votes of illegal immigrants" crap. I don't think that's relevant]
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^^

I think this development is Stamped for approval.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top