Rose Kennedy Greenway

I never understood the concept of "real estate agents benefit from development". How's that working out for those agents who live in Las Vegas or Florida? And I certainly don't benefit from having Atelier 505 right across the street from me since my "million-dollar views" are now worth about half that.

I don't benefit from all these developments. I do benefit, however, when our city grows in a responsible and healthy way.

Saying real estate agents (or others) "benefit" is like saying school teachers benefit from anti-abortion laws (more children) or police officers benefit from weak anti-gun laws (more crime).
 
Last edited:
You've misquoted me, and misconstrued my intention in doing so.

You implied that I wrote: "real estate agents benefit from development."

My actual quote was: "I was asked to reveal my identity a few weeks ago, by one of many architects, developers and realtors on this forum, some of who indirectly benefit by cheerleading any and all projects."

I stand by that statement. Some folks want to build anything, anywhere, for whatever reason. Some folks have jobs that rely on construction. Others have jobs that rely on development. I don't cast judgment on them, it's just a fact. And its also a fact that they have a right to engage anonymously in a forum.

With respect, John, you called on me to reveal my "cloak of anonymity" with no basis or knowledge of a conflict -- and none exists in reality. You drew the line in the sand on this forum regarding potential conflicts of interest -- I didn't.
 
I'm just frustrated at how the community or residents gets to dictate a developers design. No offense, just a question greenwayguy, if you are part of the BRA approval committee, would you only approve the building if it resembles Rowes Wharf? Or would you listen to Chiofaro and accept a building that proves to be pedestrian friendly even though it doesn't match your style? I would like to believe that the design of the building belongs to the architects, who spent years studying and practicing their trade over commonfolks. Now I'm not saying the current towers are perfect. But I think the decision should be decided by like someone who thinks the building has to be like Rowes Wharf or some other building in the city.


Plus Rowes Wharf is a gigantic wall minus the arch.
 
KentXie said:
I'm just frustrated at how the community or residents gets to dictate a developers design. No offense, just a question greenwayguy, if you are part of the BRA approval committee, would you only approve the building if it resembles Rowes Wharf? Or would you listen to Chiofaro and accept a building that proves to be pedestrian friendly even though it doesn't match your style? I would like to believe that the design of the building belongs to the architects, who spent years studying and practicing their trade over commonfolks. Now I'm not saying the current towers are perfect. But I think the decision should be decided by like someone who thinks the building has to be like Rowes Wharf or some other building in the city.


Plus Rowes Wharf is a gigantic wall minus the arch.
Click to expand...


Kentxie, If this was any other developer for this parcel. Menino and the BRA would have given the green light for the height and design of the project. As an example take a look at the Liberty Mutual project. How much insight did the BRA or Menino give the community residents. They practically walked all over that process and the NIMBYS. The Unions are starving for jobs and if a favorable developer proposes their plan then the BRA process really doesn't exist. They get a free ride. The only time the BRA developmental process actually exists is when they don't favor the developer. The Mayor and the BRA make it impossible for a developer to get anything done and IMHO would even love to force them into bankruptcy so one of their friends picks up the project and steals the ideas. I actually commend Chiofaro for being this patience.
Me personally would have declared war on these Fucking scumbags.
 
Last edited:
^
briv, you threaten me for expressing a well-informed (though perhaps unpopular) point-of-view and then allow Rifleman to periodically spew this kind of vitriolic, profane nonsense that is totally unfounded in fact or reality without censure?

This board is starting to resemble the (alleged but as yet unproven) inequity inherent in the development review process in the city of Boston!
 
Greenwayguy - your view is informed and you present an interesting interpretation of events, which I (and probably others too) enjoy reading and debating.

I've been participating on this forum for nearly two years and reading it long before that. Based on my experiences, I think the red flag that you're raising has to do with your overwhelming focus on one particular issue. Nothing wrong with being interested in one particular thing, but as I've seen it, history usually bears out that members who focus too heavily on a single issue and have a contrarian point of view are usually interested parties first, and positive contributors here second. There's nothing wrong with having material interests in what we discuss - many of us do to one extent or another. But the great majority of posters here will engage in discussion on a variety of topics. Rifleman may post with a high degree of vitriol and excitement, but he does so across the board. I've also read threads where Rifleman has changed his mind in response to a counterargument or correction that's been made.

My advice (for what it's worth) would be that you could still get your point of view across and even attain greater credibility while doing so if you participate here more broadly and show a willingness to have your mind changed.
 
^shepard

Not sure I agree.

I tend to weigh in primarily in forums focused on the neighborhood where I live because I keep up with exactly what's going on and try to attend public meetings about issues within the neighborhood. For me, this includes the Waterfront, Seaport, Fort Point, South Boston, Leather District. I have never or rarely posted in other forums (Fenway, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, etc.).

I read but don't post in forums in other neighborhoods because I don't feel I have much to contribute.

Based on this, I suspect GreenwayGuy is a resident of Harbor Towers or the immediate area. And I'd bet most residents of that area could identify GreenwayGuy based on the level of knowledge. He probably goes to every public meeting and registers his concerns.

BTW, I enjoy Rifleman's posts, and often am in agreement with them.
 
I actually thought about you Sicilian when I wrote what I did, not that it was in any way directed at you. Your posts are focused and informed and add to the depth of members' understanding - without being contentious or argumentative. If in a parallel universe you were argumentative and contentious, I think members here would also have a right to ask you what personal stake you have.

So, to clarify: I don't think that broad participation should in any way be a requirement. All I'm saying is that if you're going to try to win arguments here, it can only help your credibility.
 
greenwayguy --

I, for one, have had issues with the level of discourse we sometimes find here. I thought about it a long time ago, when one of our number considered why more women (or shall I say, posters who explicitly identify themselves as female) don't seem interested in engaging in discussions here.

As is true of the entire internet, people will say things online that would get them knocked on their ass on a street corner. Check out the comments section of any major newspaper's webpage. I'm as guilty of this as the next poster. It is what it is.

Now on to your point-of-view:
I certainly consider you well informed. I also believe you to be wedded to a certain ideology about public space, and the efficacy of the planning process in Boston. I assume you're an "insider," either a resident of a potentially impacted property (i.e. Harbor Towers), or perhaps, a consultant in the employ of the same. I suppose you could be a city official as well.

The "unpopularity" of your point-of-view is based mainly on the fact that many posters find you to be disingenuous. Your boosterism for the Greenway avoids certain realities, and fails to address its glaring urbanistic deficiencies, both in concept and execution.

If you have a skin in the game, as a resident, or as a "consultant," good luck.

Here's my skin: I pay my taxes to the City of Boston and as a resident and taxpayer, I have a vested interest in seeing that all developable parcels are put to their best and highest use. Preventing shadows on a lawn doesn't put cops on the street or teachers in classrooms. Don Chiofaro's proposal needs a lot of work, but the issue isn't with scale or height.
 
greenwayguy1982 said:
^
briv, you threaten me for expressing a well-informed (though perhaps unpopular) point-of-view and then allow Rifleman to periodically spew this kind of vitriolic, profane nonsense that is totally unfounded in fact or reality without censure?

This board is starting to resemble the (alleged but as yet unproven) inequity inherent in the development review process in the city of Boston!
Click to expand...

This is how I see the process. What happened to the NIMBY for the Liberty Mutual Project?

I base my conclusions on facts. Political bailouts, stimulus packages well over 1.6 trillion dollars in 2008-2009. I'm sure nobody on this board will ever see a penny of that money. How do you actually call this consistency from our political hacks? I can accept the world is not fair.

MY POINT Of the post?. Don't tell me the BRA and the Mayor are trying to create a better city and are worried about the taxpayers of Boston. Because that is BULLSHIT.

Do you want examples
#1 W-Hotel...Loaning money to luxury development that is heading into bankruptcy. (Absolutely no right to do this.) I hope the FBI looks into this deal.

#2 Why did the Filenes project get fast tracked and look what HYNES did? Your telling me that Hynes didn't know that the bank pulled the financing before he started demolition? He thought the city would bail him out which will probably happen anyway.

#3 Columbus St........Do you know much money was skimmed off California Pension for this debacle?

#4 Liberty Mutual project----Got fast tracked because it made economic sense but then the BRA claims that it's not their fault that Chiofaro paid too much for his sight?

#5 why isn't Congress St getting developed?

NO CONSISTENCY from the MAYOR OR THE BRA this is why the city's skyline looks dreadful.
Remember we live in a city were tall buildings should be built. If you want suburban planning, move to the suburbs. So as a taxpayer I am very angry. I work 9-5 every day and I have to watch our taxdollars get wasted on people?s connections and agendas. Instead of helping create jobs.


My posts are starting to become repetive because we are lacking development in the city.
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
Greenwayguy - your view is informed and you present an interesting interpretation of events, which I (and probably others too) enjoy reading and debating.

I've been participating on this forum for nearly two years and reading it long before that. Based on my experiences, I think the red flag that you're raising has to do with your overwhelming focus on one particular issue. Nothing wrong with being interested in one particular thing, but as I've seen it, history usually bears out that members who focus too heavily on a single issue and have a contrarian point of view are usually interested parties first, and positive contributors here second. There's nothing wrong with having material interests in what we discuss - many of us do to one extent or another. But the great majority of posters here will engage in discussion on a variety of topics. Rifleman may post with a high degree of vitriol and excitement, but he does so across the board. I've also read threads where Rifleman has changed his mind in response to a counterargument or correction that's been made.

My advice (for what it's worth) would be that you could still get your point of view across and even attain greater credibility while doing so if you participate here more broadly and show a willingness to have your mind changed.
Click to expand...
+1

I think participation in multiple discussion in different area signals that you are genuine in seeing the city improve or progress. When you hunker down in one thread, the signal that you're giving out is more that your arguments are based off a personal agenda. Not saying greenwayguy is but that's the message that you get across.
 
All this suspicion is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous even if GreenwayGuy is Chiofaro's wife.

We should only be so lucky to have Chiofaro weigh in anonymously. Or maybe a "cousin" or "friend" reveal an informed view of what is going on.

Calls to remove the "cloak of anonymity" seem to come from some fear that information or posts will bring down the board. I see it as more of a lame attempt to bully people into conforming to one position or another. If people are anti-development, let them make their case and let the case be wisely refuted.

Frankly, I'm sick of development cheerleaders who don't care about setting a high standard for what gets built. To me, they are no better than NIMBY obstructionists in lowering the potential of Boston.

But I wouldn't want their positions censored and enjoy reading most of them.
 
I'm betting you?re a Harbor Tower Resident who is Pissed off that Chiofaro proposed a 600ft building. I would be pissed, But overall in the future you will have no say in what actually gets built with or without Chiofaro. Something of significance will probably be built here. Especially now that Massport said 615ft is fine. I don't see CHiofaro or Pru taking a loss (aka Vornado at Filenes). No matter how you run the numbers we will never see a Rowes wharf in that area. We already have one. So keep fighting the process all you want but you can't change the minds of the people on the board. These are very educated bloggers besides myself who actually have many backgrounds in real estate laws, architecture, construction, political views, real estate agents, community activists. We want the city to move forward and Harbor Garage is in a perfect location to create jobs, and make a better Greenway. Height or no Height the Mayor really needs to sitdown with Chiofaro and what makes sense for Boston.
 
Not a good bet, Rifleman, and my views are closer to yours than GreenwayGuy.

1) I live approximately a mile from Harbor Towers.
2) I have no professional stake in the outcome, and my condo won't increase or decrease based on the outcome.
3) I think the site would be suitable for a tower of significant height -- 600' might be fine with me on that parcel. But height is not predominate criteria that I look to each time I evaluate the success of a project.
4) I don't have faith in either Chiofaro or the current administration to produce a result worthy of the site.
5) My view is that it would be worth waiting for Chiofaro to sell the site. I don't think he has the track record to meet the potential of the site.

If people want to keep up with suspicion instead of discussion, fine. I get bored easy and can leave it to folks who agree with each other.
 
^ I think Rifleman was probably addressing Greenwayguy, not you Sicilian. (Ad hominems can be painfully confusing...)
 
Sicilian said:
Not a good bet, Rifleman, and my views are closer to yours than GreenwayGuy.

1) I live approximately a mile from Harbor Towers.
2) I have no professional stake in the outcome, and my condo won't increase or decrease based on the outcome.
3) I think the site would be suitable for a tower of significant height -- 600' might be fine with me on that parcel. But height is not predominate criteria that I look to each time I evaluate the success of a project.
4) I don't have faith in either Chiofaro or the current administration to produce a result worthy of the site.
5) My view is that it would be worth waiting for Chiofaro to sell the site. I don't think he has the track record to meet the potential of the site.

If people want to keep up with suspicion instead of discussion, fine. I get bored easy and can leave it to folks who agree with each other.
Click to expand...

My post was for the Greenwayguy.
 
stellarfun said:
Rifleman, while Massport said 615 feet is fine, the FAA in October 2009, said 400 or so feet was 200 or so feet too high. The regulation of new construction that may affect air navigation is a FAA responsibility, not Massport.

http://rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_G...0931f186256c2a00721867/$FILE/ac70-7460-2K.pdf
Click to expand...


In theory and with some logic, there are (2) 400 ft towers right next door and 600Ft+ across the street. I think the FAA would probably agree with Massport. But for some reason logic does not exist in our society. So you could be right.
 
TheRifleman said:
In theory and with some logic, there are (2) 400 ft towers right next door and 600Ft+ across the street. I think the FAA would probably agree with Massport. But for some reason logic does not exist in our society. So you could be right.
Click to expand...

Does anyone remember that argument the FAA had against Columbus Center? That at 433ft, planes have to carry lighter to avoid the building. I wonder did the FAA or the airlines complaining know that the 790ft JHT was down the block. Yeah...I wouldn't trust anything the FAA says.

Ah here's the excerpt. I have the full article but according to the website, I'm not allow to reproduce it:

Airlines call Turnpike tower project takeoff obstacle
By Kevin Rothstein
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

"Depending on the meteorological conditions in Boston, taking off from runway 27 would require an airline to take a weight restriction, that is fly with fewer passengers, less fuel or less freight to gain enough altitude to clear the proposed Columbus Center, and this is unacceptable to us," said American Airlines spokesman John Hotard.

The FAA wouldn't identify who asked for the review, but Hotard said American and several other airlines sought it. A message left at [Arthur Winn]'s office wasn't returned.
Click to expand...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonh...+call+Turnpike+tower+project+takeoff+obstacle
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top