Lyrik Back Bay | 1001 Boylston Street (Parcel 12) | Back Bay

stellarfun said:
The Eliot hotel's issue is perceived loss of access to its loading docks. It is suing to ensure it doesn't lose that access.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true - - even though the Eliot words it cutely so.

Per the Globe article, the loss would be a Turnpike ON-ramp.......not an OFF-ramp. So DELIVERY ACCESS is not hampered at all. The ease and convenience of already unloaded trucks to exit Boston is what the issue is. "Delivery access" is not affected at all. And will be made far easier when Boston in the near/inevitable future moves to limiting service/supply trucks to 9pm-6am windows.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
....and btw, the current Mass Ave/Turnpike on-ramp is a shit show. There's no other way to term it.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

If the Eliot was downtown during the 1990's they would have sued to stop the Big Dig.

Bostonians and people who love the city should exercise THEIR rights and boycott this hotel and its restaurant that is suing against the public good.

 
Is the on-ramp going to be closed at all during construction? If so, why not build the new on-ramp before the existing one is closed? The new one is pretty much away from the existing one, and could be built while maintaining traffic on the old one..
 
Let's see....this loading dock that is apparently not used all the time?

1601150368637.png
 
Google street views of the loading dock over time. Sorry, I can't get an iframe image to load.

goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
goo.gl goo.gl
2016

goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
goo.gl goo.gl
2007


goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
goo.gl goo.gl
2009

So how would Samuels project impinge on this? Are they closing Newbury St., or reducing it to one lane during construction?
 
Last edited:
It's a polite way of saying to Samuels, "If you mitigate the disruption of our lives and our business with, shall we say, a small payment as compensation, the lawsuit will just disappear." But in reality it's a last minute attempt at a shakedown by the hotel and the residents. This is par for the course in the annals of new construction in Boston.
 
50319842581_8dc4db415d_b.jpg


IMO, he hotel has an excellent case based on this photo. Samuels has blocked off two of the three lanes on Newbury St. He and he city will need to find a way to mitigate that, and I am sure they will. But the lawsuit suggests that to this point, Samuels has been non-responsive to complaints by the hotel.
 
Im wondering if its normal for developers to face multiple lawsuits during construction we just dont hear about it. If so
1. I wonder how anything gets done
2. Hopefully its not that big a deal
 
stellarfun said:
50319842581_8dc4db415d_b.jpg


IMO, he hotel has an excellent case based on this photo. Samuels has blocked off two of the three lanes on Newbury St. He and he city will need to find a way to mitigate that, and I am sure they will. But the lawsuit suggests that to this point, Samuels has been non-responsive to complaints by the hotel.
Click to expand...
Ummm. Has access disappeared though? It appears not.
Curbside access is not guaranteed by the city, in particular, a designated space in a busy area like that. They have even built up over their driveway to the service access in the past so it seems more like a nuisance suit with a suspect motive than anything else. Trying to delay Citizen M from stealing a few marginal guests away from the Eliot?
 
stellarfun said:
50319842581_8dc4db415d_b.jpg


IMO, he hotel has an excellent case based on this photo. Samuels has blocked off two of the three lanes on Newbury St. He and he city will need to find a way to mitigate that, and I am sure they will. But the lawsuit suggests that to this point, Samuels has been non-responsive to complaints by the hotel.
Click to expand...

That photo clearly shows only one lane being cut off, not two. The construction scar continues over the sidewalk.
 
I hope the Eliot loses its injunction and is a whole lot less lighter in the wallet after this foolishness. The lady and I can’t wait to try out the new hotel and restaurant when completed.
 
Thanks for the photos beeline, and for the photo showing the entrance to the Hotel Eliot loading dock area. The last photo shows what appears to be an old retaining wall for the railroad right-of-way.
_____________________________
From the historical Google streetview, my guess is that the Eliot holds an easement in perpetuity along the back of the properties on Mass Ave. It is in effect, a private alley. Aside from its use as access to a loading dock, more importantly it provides access for the fire department to the rear of the hotel.

This will be resolved by having Samuels' contractor narrow his construction zone so that the hotel's beneficial property interest in that alley access is preserved. Easily done.

Its important to bear in mind that the Eliot hotel is not objecting to the project; it is objecting to how Samuels contractor has set up construction staging and its construction zone.

I'll draw an illustrative, if somewhat far-fetched, analogy. I own a condo in Southie, the condo comes with its own off-street parking space (a very valuable commodity). The condo is on a two lane, one way street. Big project starts construction several lots away. One day, the contractor comes and places Jersey barriers in front on my condo, blocking entry to my off-street-parking. These barriers take away one lane of the street. Any deliveries (whether Uber Eats or Jordans furniture) to my condo must be made using the corner 100 feet away. If I'm the condo owner, I am a.) taking this lying down; b.) screaming like hell; c.) screaming like hell and taking the contractor to court.
 
stick n move said:
Im wondering if its normal for developers to face multiple lawsuits during construction we just dont hear about it. If so
1. I wonder how anything gets done
2. Hopefully its not that big a deal
Click to expand...
It is quite common for law suits seeking similar relief to be consolidated.

In this instance, neither is a big deal. The condo owners have no case, --taking Samuels word that these condo owners are simply re-hashing arguments that they've made previously on numerous occasions. Their arguments were heard and rejected. There is no legal right to a viewshed; if one wants to preserve a viewshed, purchase an easement protecting such from all properties that control the view. Light/shadow, noise are often regulated, through zoning, codes, or regulation. And his project was approved after review of its environmental effects.

One doesn't keep getting more bites of the apple. Anyone who wants to spend (waste) their money can find a lawyer to take their case.

The Hotel Eliot has a case, but it is easily resolved.

As to litigation, I participated in a very recent case in DC, brought by the Preservation League which sued the District for approving a demolition permit for a historic industrial building. (I was in opposition to the Preservation League, which lost badly.)

The developer was not sued directly, but was allowed -- as they owned and were re-developing the property -- to enter the case as an intervenor. Taxpayers paid for the District's lawyers; the developer's lawyers fees for just this case were undoubtedly in the medium-high six figures.
 
Does the same law firm handle all these frivolous lawsuits? It always seems like a cut and paste job from the previous suit about wind, shadows, traffic and other such nonsense. I can see a few shysters grifting on rich NIMBY'S around town. "Of course you have a solid case. Just write me a $250K check and I'll be in court tomorrow morning."
 
stellarfun said:
It is quite common for law suits seeking similar relief to be consolidated.

In this instance, neither is a big deal. The condo owners have no case, --taking Samuels word that these condo owners are simply re-hashing arguments that they've made previously on numerous occasions. Their arguments were heard and rejected. There is no legal right to a viewshed; if one wants to preserve a viewshed, purchase an easement protecting such from all properties that control the view. Light/shadow, noise are often regulated, through zoning, codes, or regulation. And his project was approved after review of its environmental effects.

One doesn't keep getting more bites of the apple. Anyone who wants to spend (waste) their money can find a lawyer to take their case.

The Hotel Eliot has a case, but it is easily resolved.

As to litigation, I participated in a very recent case in DC, brought by the Preservation League which sued the District for approving a demolition permit for a historic industrial building. (I was in opposition to the Preservation League, which lost badly.)

The developer was not sued directly, but was allowed -- as they owned and were re-developing the property -- to enter the case as an intervenor. Taxpayers paid for the District's lawyers; the developer's lawyers fees for just this case were undoubtedly in the medium-high six figures.
Click to expand...

So then the question that begs an answer is simply: Why did the Eliot join and support the condo owners more-overarching lawsuit? Seems unethical and immoral if their beef has nothing to do with the condo owners’ baseless main issues.


THAT is the part that is Shameless. File your own lawsuit pertaining to your direct issue. What the Eliot did is just cheap legal exploitation to glam onto a completely different argument. And, yes, that directly is against the common good.

The consumer/local citizens have a voice and wallets too. We/they can remember which business is a good citizen and which isn’t.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top