Wow, the way you asked this question is really loaded.
Perhaps someone here could eloquently explain why a 47-story tower should be built on the borders of two of Boston's most historic and lively residential neighborhoods?
Two comments on this...
First, let's reframe the question. Why should a 47-story residential tower NOT be built on a relatively desolate corner adjacent to one of the city's major transit hubs? If ever there was a location that could support density without greater traffic or congestion concerns, this is it. Considering the environmental benefits of residents living close to where they work, considering the tax revenue to the city that the building will generate, considering the liveliness the building will contribute to the entire area... I would think that it would be downright
irrational to leave that corner as it is.
Second, the way you've framed your question sets up an implicit straw man: that the tower will make the two "historic and lively" residential neighborhoods less historic and less lively. Both are untrue. As your question even says, this is the
border between the two neighborhoods - meaning that this tower isn't replacing a historic townhouse on Marlborough Street and ruining the character of a historic stretch of brownstone. This "border" is an area that has little history other than as train yards. Since the mid 20th century this corridor has been designated as the "high spine" - meaning that tall buildings are explicitly expected to rise here. So again, rephrasing your question: why should a 47-story tower NOT be built on the border between two residential neighborhoods which has been explicitly singled out for high rise development?
So, the tower is not out of historical context. And, as I already mentioned, more residents will mean a more lively Back Bay and South End - shoppers, restaurant patrons, eyes on the street, and so forth.
Do rational people have legitimate concerns over this project? If so, how do you explain your support? I ask purely for argument's sake.
Well, if I were living in a high floor of Tent City and having my view blocked, I suppose my opposition could be called "rational." But would that opposition be serving the city's best interests? No. It would be purely NIMBY. Rational, perhaps, but NIMBY nonetheless. Every time NIMBYs loudly oppose Boston development, then development in this city becomes even more difficult. And with many areas of this city still underdeveloped relative to their transit-supported potential (Fenway, West End, Greenway, Seaport, etc) that's a very dangerous precedent to set. To those who aren't about to lose views, the tower should, in my mind, be unobjectiionable. And to those who lose their views, ultimately this is to be expected in a city - a location that you move to for its dynamism and propensity to change and surprise.