The Hub on Causeway (née TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

Beton Brut said:
I know of a Federally-owned site that's pretty close to train station...
Click to expand...

You'd think that they could come up with an agreement for a developer to build a new facility for the Post Office and a payment in exchange for giving up that prime land. If the post office wants to stay near the airport you could build something on 1A by Suffolk Downs, or where the Wonderland track has sat empty for years. Otherwise there are tons of spots further out along 128. You could also go for one of those park and ride places near the airport, or even the Boston Edison land.
 
^^^
Jumbo, the real message (to wantonly inject politics into this) is that no amount of security will ever protect everyone. In my opinion, it’s not worth all of the losses of freedom incurred... I’m not saying stop the TSA, but assuming more walls and patdowns work as a long term plan, and ruining the marathon by adding check points, is NOT a final solution.

What the gov needs to do is scale back their operations in Boston and build a new building where the low slung part of JFK is, and consolidate the Tip And JFK stuff there... I could live with that.
 
I'm with Jumbo and FK4. The real victory for crazies is the amount of money and worry we pour into these things when most of the time everything is fine. Stick some nice bollards up on the sidewalk, plant more trees, call it a day. We will never have enough money to render everyone and everything completely safe, and in the attempt we lose a lot of what makes life enjoyable.
 
Before this sails too far off on a tangent,

a.) Federal buildings are symbolic, and are thus deemed to be a preferred target. The reason they are a preferred target is that successfully attacking them shows the government to be weak; i.e., if the government can't protect itself, how can it protect its citizens? (Then there are those who have a grievance, real or perceived, against the government, but they are a separate case.)

The security enhancements are put in place to make buildings less vulnerable, deter attacks, and increase the likelihood that if an attack is attempted, it will be unsuccessful. As a result and as noted, terrorists now often choose 'softer' targets. But....... If TD North started sitting bank clerks with their cash drawer on a table by the door, one can predict how robbers will react to the opportunity.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZV2jPC6zRBz

^^^The street sign is at 17th and H streets in Washington. If the truck proceeds to go straight, it is quickly pulled over, and 'inspected', before being turned around.

The Federal government gets to say how things are done, because if indemnifies. There would be no nuclear power in the U.S. without the government indemnifying against a catastrophic event. In 9/11, the government indemnified, and thus spared the taxpayers of Massachusetts from having to pay many tens of billions in damages. (By far the lion's share of the damages of 9/11 came from the two planes that departed Logan. After two airlines had declared a liquidating bankruptcy, who is left to go after?)

b.) If the state, or city, and a developer were particularly keen on the O''Neill site, make an offer to the Feds to build a new O'Neill on Kneeland street in exchange for Causeway St.. Or Rudolph's [State] Government Services Center. The Feds might take you up on it.

c.) As for re-cladding O'Neill, it's not out of the question. Wait for another recession, a government stimulus program,and voila. The Massachusetts Congressional delegation has to be on-board though, and not half-asleep.
 
stellarfun said:
Before this sails too far off on a tangent,

a.) Federal buildings are symbolic, and are thus deemed to be a preferred target. The reason they are a preferred target is that successfully attacking them shows the government to be weak; i.e., if the government can't protect itself, how can it protect its citizens? (Then there are those who have a grievance, real or perceived, against the government, but they are a separate case.)

The security enhancements are put in place to make buildings less vulnerable, deter attacks, and increase the likelihood that if an attack is attempted, it will be unsuccessful. As a result and as noted, terrorists now often choose 'softer' targets. But....... If TD North started sitting bank clerks with their cash drawer on a table by the door, one can predict how robbers will react to the opportunity.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZV2jPC6zRBz

^^^The street sign is at 17th and H streets in Washington. If the truck proceeds to go straight, it is quickly pulled over, and 'inspected', before being turned around.

The Federal government gets to say how things are done, because if indemnifies. There would be no nuclear power in the U.S. without the government indemnifying against a catastrophic event. In 9/11, the government indemnified, and thus spared the taxpayers of Massachusetts from having to pay many tens of billions in damages. (By far the lion's share of the damages of 9/11 came from the two planes that departed Logan. After two airlines had declared a liquidating bankruptcy, who is left to go after?)

b.) If the state, or city, and a developer were particularly keen on the O''Neill site, make an offer to the Feds to build a new O'Neill on Kneeland street in exchange for Causeway St.. Or Rudolph's [State] Government Services Center. The Feds might take you up on it.

c.) As for re-cladding O'Neill, it's not out of the question. Wait for another recession, a government stimulus program,and voila. The Massachusetts Congressional delegation has to be on-board though, and not half-asleep.
Click to expand...

This seems like a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to me. Is there any evidence to support this besides correlation?

From what I can tell, the evidence actually points the other way.

For instance, this study from nearly 10 years ago suggest that ideology, not security enhancement, is driving the trend toward civilian targets: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19361610902929990?src=recsys&journalCode=wasr20

And this recent study suggest that splinter groups and offshoots (groups like ISIS, and local cells, which are more prevalent today) are more likely to target civilians than parent groups: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/676
 
Last edited:
GW said:
This seems like a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to me. Is there any evidence to support this besides correlation?

From what I can tell, the evidence actually points the other way.

For instance, this study from nearly 10 years ago suggest that ideology, not security enhancement, is driving the trend toward civilian targets: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19361610902929990?src=recsys&journalCode=wasr20

And this recent study suggest that splinter groups and offshoots (groups like ISIS, and local cells, which are more prevalent today) are more likely to target civilians than parent groups: http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/676
Click to expand...

The second link I read: it is a modeling exercise that made no attempt, from what I could see, at validation, or even calibration. (The lead author is from Northeastern.) As for the first link, I am not paying several hundred dollars to read it. (And I cast a skeptical eye at any journal article where the short parade of authors are all from the same institution (SUNY Albany, in this instance). 'Publish or perish'?)'

In the 2015 attacks in Paris, three of the attackers had as their target, the Stade de France where the President of France was in attendance watching a soccer match.

Last year, there was a terrorist attack proximate to Westminster.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/london-government-terrorist-attack/520416/

The principal targets during the IRA's campaign in England.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/08/...street-with-mortar-fire-as-cabinet-meets.html

http://alphahistory.com/northernireland/ira-mainland-campaign/

...Al Qaeda has long used a mix of strategies to achieve its objectives. To fight the United States, Al Qaeda plots terrorism spectaculars to electrify the Muslim world (and get it to follow Al Qaeda’s banner) ..

Al Qaeda has long favored large-scale, dramatic attacks against strategic or symbolic targets....
Click to expand...

^^^Testimony [comparing ISIS and AQ tactics] of a Brookings scholar in April 2015 testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/comparing-al-qaeda-and-isis-different-goals-different-targets/
 
I'm excited for the street-level and public realm improvements to North Station, but anything above the 9th floor will be a total snooze.

Remembering that this site remained fallow for decades, here's what Chicago's doing with the site of a famously abandoned project. I'm generally neutral to David Childs, but this is fresh. North Station deserved something this good, scaled down by a third.
 
Last edited:
Im hoping the residential is the charizard pokemon tower that we RARELY get where it looks better than the renderings. Very very slim chance of that happening, but if it happens this is the spot. Fingers crossed. Any word on if the office tower is still garbage or did they change their mind again and go back to the old one?
 
it's gonna be very good.

Sad it lost 161' from the once upon a time height.
 
The webcam seems to have been discontinued as of 5/15. Does anybody have a new link they can provide?
 
Don't need it.... as you clearly demonstrated,

aB'ers can now document its progress from just about anywhere. :)
 
DZH22 said:
The webcam seems to have been discontinued as of 5/15. Does anybody have a new link they can provide?
Click to expand...

Maybe they're moving it to a higher/better viewing angle. It might be up and running again soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top