Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Strap yourself firmly in place before reading this...
Why BRA Should Not Approve Simon's Proposed Copley Place Skyscraper Project
Letter to the Editor - by Bob Feldman
The Boston Courant
August 16, 2008
In its recently-filed "Project Notification Form," the debt-ridden, Indianapolis-based Simon Property owner of shopping malls claims its Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street skyscraper construction project "promotes Boston's affordable housing objectives." Yet Simon Property provides no evidence in its PNF that any of its proposed new 280 residential condominium units will be affordable to low-income and moderate-income residents of Boston or that the residential population of its proposed 47-story skyscraper will reflect the current racial diversity of the City of Boston.
But in its PNF, Simon Property does admit that if its skyscraper is built, during the lunch period of the workweek when Copley Square is most frequently used by local office workers in the autumn, 20 percent of Copley Square will then be under a shadow. As page 3-2 of the PNF notes:
"From October to February, additional shadow resulting from the Project will reach Copley Square ... around 12:00 noon ... affecting... 20% of the area of Copley Square at any one time. From November to February 23, new shadow from the Project will sweep across Copley Square starting around 11:00 a.m., again affecting ... 20% of the area of Copley Square at any one time."
Simon Property also indicates that an uncomfortable new wind tunnel along Stuart Street will be created if its skyscraper is built. As page page 3-2 of its PNF observes: "Wind conditions along Stuart Street may ... require ... mitigation due to the ... channeling effect between the Project and surrounding existing buildings, which could increase pedestrian level horizontal wind..."
If Simon Property is allowed to start building its luxury condominium skyscraper on Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street, for at least 3 years (between Fall 2009 and Fall 2012) around 1,700 construction workers will be disturbing the quality of life between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. each weekday for commuters, local residents, local office workers and local hotel guests and shoppers. And, as the PNF also notes, to construct Simon Property's skyscraper "night hours will be required as determined by the Mass Turnpike Authority for work on the Mass Pike," which will disturb the quality of life for local residents and local hotel quests during the night.
Since the new residents of the 280 luxury condominium units in Simon Propoerty's planned skyscraper are each expected to own at least one automobile, over 15 percent of the 1,558 parking spaces now controlled by Simon Property in the Copley Place Center and Tent City (Dartmouth) garages will then be just reserved for the new residents of the Stuart and Dartmouth Street skyscraper, if the project is built. The number of available parking spaces for use by local workers, local shoppers and local residents will thus be decreased by 297, since "297 parking spaces will be reassigned to provide parking for the residential units," according to page C-1 of the PNF.
IF Simon Property is allowed to begin its three-year construction project, negative "air-quality impacts from fugitive dust may be expected during the early phase of construction and during demolition," according to page 3-6 of Simon's PNF. In addition, "The Project will generate solid waste;" and "solid waste generated" by the project "will be approximately 1,010 tons per year," according to Simon's PNF.
In addition to possibly creating nighttime traffic problems on the Mass Pike when Simon's construction workers are authorized to make noise during night hours, additional daytime traffic jams on Stuart Street and Dartmouth Street may also be created by Simon's project because it will produce decreased automobilelane width at the Stuart and Dartmouth Street intersection.
Although Simon Property's skyscraper will be located very near to a skyscraper which was plagued by unpredictable post-construction problems, the John Hancock Building, the PNF doesn't seem to indicate why its skyscraper WON'T be plagued by similar unpredictable post-construction problems as was the John Hancock Building. As the book
Skyscraper by KArl Sabbagh observed:
(pardon the interruption, but this ass clown just used physical proximity to blatantly instill fear in the readers!)
"The windows of the John Hancock Building in Boston provide one example of the unpleasant surprised lying in the wait for the best of architects and construction managers. One November day in 1972 a pane of glass fell out of the newly-completed sixty-story building. IT was the first of hundreds of panes that were shower down on the Boston passers-by ... It took four years of falling glass for the architects and construction company to decide what to do ... The true cause of the failure was never made public ... It has been estimated that the total cost of the John Hancock problem, including replacing all 10,344 panes of glass, was more than the original cost of the building, $95 million..."
The same book also recalled that when a skyscraper is constructed:
"The effects of the project will inevitably spread far beyond the boundaries of the site. The constant stream of trucks to and from the site, some bringing concrete, others carring away rubble to dumps ... disrupts ... the already busy traffic ... Buses sometimes have to mount the pavement to skirt around the trucks...
"The history of construction is littered with disasters caused by a failure to appreciate the impact of loads and forces on steel connectors and supports. In July 1981 two walkways in thr lobby of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City collapsed, killing 113 people and injuring more than 180..."
Simon Proerty's PNF also doesn't seem to fully disclose how tall its 57-story skyscraper will actually be, since its height estimate of 569 feet apparently doesn't include the additional feet added to the proposed skyscraper's height by its "mechanical penthouse."
The City of Boston, under the October 4, 1979 U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit decision in the Hass vs. City and County of San Francisco and California, has the right to stop high-rise buildings for "quality of life reasons." So the BRA should not authorize Simon Property to substitute a larger, high-rise residential building of luxury condominiums for the current building it owns at the Nieman-Marcus site, just because the construction project may be financially advantageous to the Simon Property Group and to Nieman-Marcus. As a New England court ruled in the 1931 Thayer vs. Hartford decision:
"The substitution for an old building of a new one--three times larger--with a corresponding increase in the nonconforming use ... is permissible only for circumstances more compelling than the improved physical appearance of the premises or a more advantageous financial return to the owner."
Email the Courant at: letters@bostoncourant.com
