So this was a good one. A couple of other posters were there as well (I'm sure they'll offer their own thoughts).
From an urbanistic standpoint, the ideas here are sound. I got to chat for a few moments with Bob Fox (partner in
Cook + Fox) -- he's an interesting guy. Though there was a lot to like about both the Gensler and Foster proposals, I think Raymond has the right design.
Sticking points (aside from height) are around the loss of parking (mainly a North End concern), sight-lines (from the West Enders, who prefer the Borg Cube to a pair of handsome skyscrapers), and the need/expectation/demand for a school.
Here's where it got fun. Our pal Mike Ross stood up and made a Khrushchev-like demand of the developers that they be required to build a school as part of the development's masterplan, or he would not ascent to project's approval. Does that sound like the way that an elected official in these United States should conduct himself at a public meeting?
Let's think about this for a moment:
Does anyone recall that Emperor Menino pitched a fit a couple of years ago when Joe Fallon talked about including a school in his plans for Seaport Square? "I duh-side whair da skools get...uh...put" (or something like that -- my fluency in Readville gibberish is somewhat limited).
Also, if there's a real need (and there indeed may be) for a school to serve the families in the North End, Beacon Hill, the West End, and the Bulfinch Triangle (when it's built out), doesn't the School Committee (or the School Department) have a mechanism to study these needs and plan ahead? Isn't there a process to determine where to build new schools? Census data? Does anyone look at this stuff?
I'm sure others will offer their thoughts too. I'm a bit torched, and whiskey-deprived.
