Fenway Center (One Kenmore) | Turnpike Parcel 7, Beacon Street | Fenway

[ablarc]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Some of us have never found the need to have cell phones.

Good for you. Ron!

(Pesky things, always going off at the wrong time.)

 

[czsz]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Given that, according to Ned, urban highways are apparently such grave contributors of pollution whether or not there are buildings placed atop them (and given that there already are a number of buildings straddling the Pike, and that much of the downtown highway system is now underground), it seems like anyone who is concerned about this problem would be directing his or her efforts to solutions that would help substantially lessen the pollution generated by the entire system. Why not put all this energy into promoting transit alternatives, advocating a congestion charge, or banning through traffic trucking from the city center? Such efforts could go well beyond whatever supposed pollution is offset by killing Columbus and/or Fenway Center.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

. . . what qualifies you, as an individual, to be a public advocate for these scientific points of view . . . you are clearly a . . . contributing party, which makes you a de-facto policy player and unelected . . . public servant.

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act dissects environmental issues, not people. It does not require citizens to publish their resumes before filing public comment letters. Any person may raise any issue, without having to provide the education/employment history that you requested. The MEPA does specify what topics are relevant in comment letters, and it does specify that a Notice to Litigate be presented factually, and appropriately illustrated, substantiated, and cited.

I did exactly what the Act requires. I exercised my legal rights to: (a) file public comments on permissible topics, and (b) file a Notice of Intent to Litigate for permissible reasons.

In America, any individual may speak on any topic, and lots of people publicly advocate for many causes. And everyone who comments ? even someone who comments only through silence ? is, ultimately, what you call a ?contributing party? and a ?de-facto policy player? and an ?unelected public servant.? Insofar as that goes, everyone has an equal opportunity to speak, everyone has discretion over what they choose to hear, and people draw whatever conclusions they wish.

This forum is about the built environment. It is not about individuals, as evidenced by the facts that (a) no forum member has to post a resume to post a message; and (b) every forum member is allowed to hide ? anonymously ? behind a cartoon name.

Given all that, your request for my education/employment history is inappropriate, irrelevant, and insincere.

You don?t disclose your identity, so there?s no way to tell whether what you write is because you are yourself misguided, or are merely misinformed, or are being used by others, or some combination of the three. You focused on an individual instead of the public issues that the individual identified, which is a dead give-away. That tactic is needed only by those who have no defensible responses.

When developers, their enthralled apologists, and those who are (or hope to be) on their gravy train can?t defend identified issues, they resort instead to attacking whoever did the identifying, because that shifts people?s attention toward the identifiers, and away from the issues and those who are responsible for them.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

. . . it seems like anyone who is concerned about this problem would be directing his or her efforts to solutions that would help substantially lessen the pollution generated by the entire system . . . promoting transit alternatives, advocating a congestion charge, or banning through traffic trucking from the city center. . .

Many people have worked for years on transit alternatives, congestion, and through-traffic, and those ideas continue getting much attention. On the other hand, most individuals, elected officials, and government agencies continue to be altogether ignorant about particulate matter air pollution. It continues to be denied and dismissed even by members of this forum, all of whom should know better. So, given the severe negative health outcomes from particulate matter air pollution ? birth defects, heart disease, lung disease, cancer, early mortality ? and given the widespread ignorance, it makes perfect sense to raise public awareness at every juncture.

. . . Such efforts could go well beyond whatever supposed pollution is offset by killing Columbus and/or Fenway Center.

When you call particulate matter ?supposed pollution? you reveal yourself as a perfect example of someone who chose to stay uninformed. And when you equate building safe, healthy projects with ?killing Columbus and/or Fenway Center? you show yourself to be ignorant of the problems as well as the solutions.

For nearly 2 decades I have advocated for tunneling the corridor below and developing it above, because that is good public policy. I also have advocated for pre-screened developers, competitive bids, full financial disclosure, Turnpike Master Plan compliance, and air quality in line with the latest science. Today, I advocate for developing all 23 properties and all 44 acres in ways that are safe and healthy for everyone. That includes the 7 proposals still pending.

But when you weighed killing proposals versus killing people, and decided to favor projects over human lives, you laid bare the ultimate questions:

? To get a project built, how many people would you agree could preamturely die there later?
? What?s your deaths-per-project threshold?
? How did you determine that number?
? Why do you approve of any deaths at all?

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

But Ned, going back to Czsz's point, if you're real concerns are premature deaths per project or cancer rates per unit of housing or whatever . . . isn't there lower hanging fruit? I mean, you come across as a smart and (obviously) passionate guy, doesn't it make more sense to focus this passion on things like:

High quality affordable housing
Transit-oriented develpment
Outlawing the use of transfats in new restaurants
Reducing the number of liquor licenses in the city
Eliminating fossil fuel power plants
Upgrading the transmission and distribution infrastructure of our electric grid

I mean, in the long run, don't all these things save way more lives?

EDIT: I'm not in favor of reducing the liquor licenses in this city. I'm just saying, you'd probably save lives.

 

[Shepard]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act dissects environmental issues, not people. It does not require citizens to publish their resumes before filing public comment letters. Any person may raise any issue, without having to provide the education/employment history that you requested.

Ned, please stop the semantics. Issues and people aren?t opposite things. People raise issues in support of their goals and intentions. Some people ? you ? raise MEPA in support of your intention to affect my built environment. That makes you as an individual an important element in this conversation. Because, if there were no ?you?, there might be no MEPA issue raised in order to oppose these projects. What qualifies you as an individual to do this?

In America, any individual may speak on any topic, and lots of people publicly advocate for many causes. And everyone who comments ? even someone who comments only through silence ? is, ultimately, what you call a ?contributing party? and a ?de-facto policy player? and an ?unelected public servant.?

There?s a difference between people who ?comment through silence? and you. You comment not only vocally, but with actions that affect where I live, where I?ve invested. I don?t care about the qualifications of people who stay silent. I care about the qualifications of people who take action. That?s because, for people in your category, there?s a moderating factor called ?credibility.? This is the same concept that means, even if I thought I were a pretty talented artist, I can?t waltz into the ICA and spray paint a wall - just like I couldn?t grab my violin and jump on stage with the BSO. This is why leaders are ratified with elections in a democracy. It?s the same reason why the New York Times Review of Books continues to publish and be read even though anyone can read anyone else?s review of a book on amazon.com. Be the person who takes action, fine; but be credible. That?s why I ask again: what qualifies you as an individual to take these actions?

Insofar as that goes, everyone has an equal opportunity to speak, everyone has discretion over what they choose to hear, and people draw whatever conclusions they wish.

But you haven?t written a book that shoppers can peruse at their leisure in the environmental policy aisle of the bookstore. You take action. It?s that which makes you a ?de-facto policy player? and yes, again, I want to know what qualifies you as an individual to play this role.

This forum is about the built environment. It is not about individuals, as evidenced by the facts that (a) no forum member has to post a resume to post a message; and (b) every forum member is allowed to hide ? anonymously ? behind a cartoon name.

My request for your resume and background isn?t to force you out into the open as a forum member. My request for you to do so has nothing to do with this forum, except insofar as this forum is serving as a medium for this conversation. The fact that many forum members are anonymous doesn?t matter to me. They?re not actively working to shape my ?built environment? the way you are. So don?t think I?m rude if I ask you another time: what qualifies you as an individual to do this?

I?d also like to add that, if you read my previous posts, I?ve given out at various times my name, my occupation, where I live, where I used to live, where I used to live before that, where I studied for my undergraduate (and if I never posted where I studied for my masters it was at the London School of Economics), my marital status, and where I?ve recently traveled for work and for vacation. Nice to meet you.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

But Ned, going back to Czsz's point, if you're real concerns are premature deaths per project or cancer rates per unit of housing or whatever . . . isn't there lower hanging fruit? I mean, you come across as a smart and (obviously) passionate guy, doesn't it make more sense to focus this passion on things like:

High quality affordable housing
Transit-oriented develpment
Outlawing the use of transfats in new restaurants
Reducing the number of liquor licenses in the city
Eliminating fossil fuel power plants
Upgrading the transmission and distribution infrastructure of our electric grid

I mean, in the long run, don't all these things save way more lives?

EDIT: I'm not in favor of reducing the liquor licenses in this city. I'm just saying, you'd probably save lives.

I hate to support Ned but you really can't expect one person, especially one that doesn't have great political power to champion that many issues.

 

[Pierce]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

EDIT: I'm not in favor of reducing the liquor licenses in this city. I'm just saying, you'd probably save lives.

Maybe in this city, but i'm wondering how that worked out in chicago in the 1920s....

but as long as we're talking absurd tactics towards saving lives: outlaw private automobile ownership and watch the funeral parlors go out of business

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

archboston.org forum: meet shark. you just jumped it.

 

[Waldorf]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

It is a problem. Unhealthy air is un-mechanically exhausted and mechanically vented above the Hynes-Prudential-Copley-Hancock tunnels, the Big Dig I-93 tunnels, and the I-90 waterfront extension tunnels. Air quality is unhealthy along every heavily used urban roadway, regardless of whether the road is elevated, at ground level, sunken, tunneled-without-vents, or tunneled-and-vented. The same dangerously poor air quality that today rises freely above Fenway Center has been captured, concentrated, and vented into the Hynes-Prudential complex since 1963; the resulting public health harm was gradually discovered decades later.



That?s untrue. MA DOT officials confirmed that I-93 tunnels have no scrubbers or filters. In the late 1980s, that was a desirable solution, and it was requested, but it was turned down by Big Dig managers ? the same firm that authored Fenway Center?s July 2008 Tunnel Ventilation Study. Government agencies and citizens requested copies of that Study, but Fenway Center?s owners refused to release or discuss it.

Really? That is disheartening. The concentrated toxic fumes being released from these vent buildings is polluting the air just like a coal plant in the midwest. One way to reduce emissions is to install these scrubbers and filters thus reducing acute pollution in the areas that are affected. Seems like a simple solution.

 

[BostonYoureMyHome]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

^Seems simple...we could put more tax dollars into that type of scrubber system or into education for long term benefits? Instant gratification is great, progress is better.

 

[Waldorf]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

I call it preventative healthcare.

 

[found5dollar]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

archboston.org forum: meet shark. you just jumped it.

Amen.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

. . . if there were no ?you?, there might be no MEPA issue raised in order to oppose these projects. . .

That?s untrue, in two ways.

Firstly, other individuals, organizations, and government agencies voiced concerns equivalent to mine during the Fenway Center comment period. So I am not a unique force that deserves intimate, wide-screen dissection; I am just one of many regular commenters on such issues. If you insist on staying obsessed over qualifications, then at least pursue every commenter equally, instead of focusing on only one commenter and ignoring all the others.

Secondly, neither I nor any of the other commenters ?opposed? Fenway Center as you wrote; instead, we asked only that it be built in ways that are healthy, safe, and fiscally responsible for everyone involved, including residents, employees, and the Commonwealth.

. . . I can?t waltz into the ICA and spray paint a wall - just like I couldn?t grab my violin and jump on stage with the BSO. . .

Just as it would be improper for you to decorate the ICA (without invitation) or perform at the symphony (without invitation), so, too, it would be improper for me to excavate a work site (without invitation). But, of course, neither of us does any of that. If you wish to comment about a clumsy collage at a gallery, go ahead; if you wish to object to an odious overture at a music hall, go ahead, and if you wish to comment on development proposals, go ahead. But don?t spout allergic reactions after others exercised their fundamental, democratic right to comment ? and you didn?t bother to comment at all.

You wrote no letters on Fenway Center, so your arch indignation that other people dared to write, and that some writers might not have met your standards ? gasp! ? is a melodramatic joke.

. . . what qualifies you as an individual to do this?

No qualifications are required to make public comments, and every citizen is empowered to comment by the U.S. Constitution, the Massachusetts Constitution, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, municipal public processes, and all the civic resources that accompany life in a democracy.

This whole discussion could have been avoided if you had not ? from the outset ? confused commenters with decision-makers. Commenters are not required to have any qualifications at all, or to prove them to anyone if they do, so complaining about a commenter?s qualifications is never valid. On the other hand, decision-makers are chartered to evaluate all comments appropriately, so if you worry that the hordes of government employees who review proposals aren?t qualified to make decisions, then write comment letters which say that until you get the results you want.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

[size=+2]MBTA rejects Fenway Center?s engineers for similar tunnel work[/size]

The MBTA board yesterday voted against using Fenway Center?s engineering firm, Parsons Brinckerhoff, for design, engineering, and rehabilitation of MBTA tunnels. Instead, the board chose to put the $2.7 million contract, which had been drawn up two years ago, back out to bid, as MBTA General Manager William Mitchell had recommended.

Parsons Brinckerhoff also supplies engineering services to Fenway Center, but its owners continue to stay silent about that work, and refuse to release the firm?s July 2008 Tunnel Ventilation Study, which government agencies and citizens requested last year. Similarly, MBTA officials did not respond this week to requests for further information about the tunnel contract that was voted down, or the locations of the tunnels.

Parsons Brinckerhoff renamed itself ?PB Americas? after paying $407 million to avoid criminal and civil liabilities over the I-90 tunnel collapse and the I-93 tunnel slurry wall defects.

Asked whether he felt comfortable working with Parsons Brinckerhoff, MBTA Board Chair John Jenkins referred reporters to contracting policies at the MBTA web site.

Source: ?MBTA puts hold on tunnel contract with PB Americas? (State House News Service, 06 January 2010, 5:31 p.m., http://www.StateHouseNews.com)

 

[Shepard]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Okay, Ned, I'm done. At the end of the day I do respect your privacy. But I still think that your inability to speak to your experience or qualifications - even if the answer was 'none' (still respectable in my opinion) - reveals a certain character trait that I find personally disconcerting.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

FYI...Ned's research into UFI pollution (or whatever it's called) was dismissed by the Audobon Circle residents' group. There was an article in the Courant from this weekend. The head of the group basically said it was a non-issue and should not effect the project.

 

[type001]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Great news. With that, I am sure we will never hear from Ned ever again.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

^^can you post the article? (I know, you'll have to type it by hand)

 

[briv]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

^^can you post the article? (I know, you'll have to type it by hand)

From this week's Courant:

ACNA Finds Pollution Allegation Unfounded

by Jim Cronin
Courant News Writer

A neighborhood activist failed to sway the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association's (ACNA) board of directors to take action against the Fenway Center development.

Prior to the group's board meeting Thusday, Ned Flaherty, a South End resident, had alerted the neighborhood group to concerns that the project, to be built above the Massachusetts Turnpike, would create new pollutiOn that could negatively affect the health of residents.

However, the total pollution produced in the area above the Mass Pike is now 11.2 micrograms of pollution-causing particles. After the Fenway Center is built, it will be 11.3 micrograms, still below the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended levels, which lie between 13 and 15 micrograms, according to Jerry Belair, project manager for Meredith Management, the project proponent.

Additionally, at the meeting, Flaherty said that health risks due to pollution exist across the city, and are 'not particular to the effect of Fenway Center and the air quality above the Mass Pike.

"There was no smoking gun," said Jack Creighton, ACNA president. "There was nothing to say that the Fenway Center will send this plume of pollution to Audubon Circle, the concern of Audubon Circle was whether Flaherty had discovered some as-yet undiscovered threat to residents, and we did not see Fenway Center creating some new form of pollution."

Flaherty also takes issue with the developer, John Rosenthal, not calling the Mass Pike space beneath his proposed project a tunnel, which Flaherty maintains is because Rosenthal does not want the project to be subject to regulations for design, construction, maintenance, air quality and insurance COSIS associated with traffic tunnels.

"That's complete hogwash," Rosenthal said in response, adding that his goal is to build a structure that does not trap people in case of an emergency, or cause pollutants to build up while cars are slowed or stopped.

Rosenthal added that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, before it was joined with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, indicated that it preferred Rosenthal's open-walled, perforated structure, supported by columns, that could be easily exited by drivers in case of an emergency, with stairways leading out.