Naturally, the Beacon Hill Civic Association now considering suing the city over intersection ramps

The Boston Business Journal reports.



    Free tagging: 


      Demonize all you want

      By on

      But for the past couple of years, Beacon Hill residents have been proposing a solution that is fully ADA compliant, that meets all the national historic register requirements for looks, and that costs the city nothing. The city, on the other hand, has been dragging its feet and stonewalling.

      The proposed solution:

      What is the BHCA is recommending?
      In keeping with the historic character of Beacon Hill, the BHCA supports the use of wire-cut bricks for the ramps and Architectural cast concrete pavers for the detectable warning pad. This is not an unreasonable request. The US access board has said that properly laid brick is just as ADA compliant as poured concrete and scientific studies comparing wire-cut brick surfaces to concrete have found that wire-cut brick provides a smoother surface for wheelchair users. Also ADA compliant is the use of the Architectural cast concrete pavers instead of plastic for the warning pads. These pavers can be made in any color and can be made with the same audible echo as the plastic pads. An additional benefit is they are 1/3 the cost of the plastic pads and possibly have a longer lifespan, as many of the plastic pads installed last year have already needed replacement. So if maintenance and cost are an issue then there is a distinct advantage to the pavers.

      The BHCA has never put the importance of the historic guidelines over importance of accessibility and safety. And in this case, there is no conflict between the ADA guidelines and the preservation guidelines - we can satisfy both. The point is not only that we can – we should.

      A couple of questions

      By on

      1. Has MAAB weighed in? Best practice is to design to the more stringent guidelines.
      2. Have any of the constituents on Beacon Hill performed construction work via the MA Public Bidding Laws? Writing the specifications and pulling together drawings is one step. Getting GCs that do public bid work to bid (accurately) on this level of work it's another (You must get 3 min). Assuring that the GC bids are accurate and that all seem to have bid on the same project is another. And then actually getting them to do the work as designed is yet another step.

      I can tell you from experience that while doing public bid work can be rewarding, it is not easy. More than a few times has CA work been fraught with arguments, contractors trying to substitute (it's within their right), and otherwise come across as though they've bid on the job they want to build, not the one in the Contract Documents.

      And even then, the GC is often not the same company that performs the sub-grade work. So of course they're going to hire the low bid. Why not? They've got to make some money on the project.

      The public entity overseeing this project has an aversion to the brick for a reason. I suspect in their experience it doesn't go as well as hoped.

      I'd like to be positive about their idea, but i don't think they've thought it through as much as they think they have.

      You must be kidding

      The neighborhood's relationship with brick sidewalks goes way back.

      In 1947, when Curley tried paving over the sidewalks with concrete, the ladies staged a sit-in on the sidewalks, physically blocked the workers, and brought such unfavorable national attention to bear on Curley that he backed down.

      Walsh doesn't have nearly the juice that Curley did in 1947; this ain't over by a long shot.

      The neighborhood really isn't asking for anything special, or anything that hasn't been done successfully in other cities.

      public entity

      By on

      I said the public entity, not the civic association wrt brick aversion.

      Construction today is different than construction of yesteryear.

      Beyond that hurdle, even those without disabilities have difficulty walking on those sidewalks on Beacon Hill.

      I point out to you that publicly bid work in MA is not the same as other States. There's a reason many contractors don't looked doing it. Getting this kind of work, at the quality you and the BHCA expect, will be difficult. As much as I like Contractors, I wouldn't wish this job on my weirdest enemy.

      Edit: and by weirdest I *meant* worst. Gah


      Beyond that hurdle, even those without disabilities have difficulty walking on those sidewalks on Beacon Hill.

      Which is why nearly everybody, both able bodied and disabled, uses the street rather than the sidewalks. There are so few cars passing through that a person using a wheelchair usually has plenty of time to get to the end of the block without a car needing to wait or for the car and the chair to maneuver around each other.

      Federal money

      By on

      Federal money for the city is at stake here. Do you really think the city cares all that much about ramps? All this hollering about to poor individuals in wheelchairs. Get real.

      Folks on the hill had a reasonable proposal. The mayor wants the federal dough. Heavy handedness ensues.

      *rolls eyes*

      By on

      of course.. the tax payers end up paying again and again.

      Seriously, you want these ramps, YOU PAY FOR THEM, not the tax payers. The city should give a dollar amount for what they want to do, and the BHCA can make up the difference if it means that much to them.

      Yeah, that's a completely

      Seriously, you want these ramps, YOU PAY FOR THEM, not the tax payers.

      Yeah, that's a completely terrible idea. That would give the BH people a green light to procrastinate as long as they felt like, and/or install non-compliant ramps that would have to be torn up and replaced later at taxpayer expense.

      The city should say "Work will commence on such-and-such date unless you have a final, acceptable plan in place before then."

      Why is it even necessary for the City to be having

      By on

      a discussion with the community about how these ramps are built? There are these things called STANDARDS, and the CIty should be able to install these ramps to said standards without having to get "mother may I permission" from the local busybodies.

      Instead, in the name of "civic engagement" and "transparency", let's waste everyone's time and the taxpayer's money debating what should be an obvious decision.

      And in six months time, after the ramps are installed, nobody will even care about them.

      As for the lawsuit, I hope that the judge recognizes it for what it is - frivilous.

      What should have been an obvious decision

      would have been for the city, 2 years ago, to accept the neighborhood's offer to pay for the fully ADA-compliant solution that the neighborhood was proposing.

      Here on this planet, government is supposed to serve the people, and not the other way around. It's amazing the amount of hate emanating from the fascist-wannabes on this list when the people try to insist on that simple principle.

      Here on this planet,

      Here on this planet, government is supposed to serve the people

      It is trying. But the Beacon Hill people keep getting in the way.


      God forbid that the government, when changing streets and sidewalks, should listen to the people who live on those streets or use those sidewalks.

      God fordid that the government

      By on

      actually use standard materials and colors for wheelchair ramps, so people who are reliant on those ramps can expect some measure of uniformity in design and color when they encounter them.

      Say your neighborhood group proposed changing all the stop signs from red to green because they decided the red ones weren't asethetically pleasing to them. Would you agree with this idea?

      Same principle applies here.

      Bad analogy, no biscuit.

      There are standards that road signs must meet.

      There are also standards that the ramps must meet.

      The BHCA's proposal is within those standards.

      You're just making shit up.

      Point taken

      By on

      However, IMO the principle behind the analogy still stands. BHCA is demanding that the City use a different standard for wheelchair ramps in their neighborhood FOR NO GOOD REASON (other than aesthetics, which, being a subjective value, does not count).

      And I don't blame the City for fighting this. Ever heard of this little thing called "bad precedent"?

      Aesthetics do not count?


      The city has no standard, as evidenced by the fact that the city has used different materials and different designs at different times in different neighborhoods.

      And, are you seriously making the claim that how stuff looks should have no bearing whatsoever in how the city decides to spend our money on stuff we will have to look at for the next 50 years?

      Ever hear of this little thing called "the government works for us, not vice versa?"

      Well then

      I guess there is no reason to get rid of City Hall. Aesthetics don't count.


      By on

      Sorry, but this is really a ridiculous analogy. Go home.

      What about the people

      By on

      who use ramps and currently aren't able to access the sidewalks of BH?

      They use the street

      Generally, people in wheelchairs use the street, as do most pedestrians. Very few people walk on the sidewalks in the interior of Beacon Hill.

      I still fail to see...

      By on

      ... Why should Beacon Hill be allowed to get special treatment? The arguments I saw, from residents mind you, on a previous post said because it's a popular tourist attraction? Please..

      That is completely unfair to the other neighborhoods in Boston.

      Not quite so

      By on

      There are many Boston neighborhoods listed on the National Register of Historic Places: Back Bay Historic District, Bulfinch Triangle Historic District, John Eliot Square District and many more. Unlike the others, the Beacon Hill Historic District is a National Historic Landmark District. This is certainly a distinction, but not one that justifies this foolishness. Beacon Hill has asphalt, stop signs, electrical lines and boxes and so forth. Ramps are just another part of the infrastructure of life and on that we all are able to push into the background as we focus on the important things.

      Or most of us are.

      And for the fiftieth time....

      Nobody is saying there should be no ramps.
      Nobody is asking for the city to do anything unreasonable, that hasn't been done successfully in other cities.

      Double-edged sword

      By on

      Nothing the city is planning to do is unreasonable either. Yet here we are.

      The Government is serving the People.

      By on

      The government is serving People with Disabilities. Marty Walsh is serving people who can't see. Marty Walsh is serving People that have difficulty or complete inability to walk. Marty Walsh is serving People that have a tendency to trip, stumble, and fall, due to Beacon Hill's hazardous and treacherous topography. Our right to safety is more urgent and important than aesthetics.

      Marty Walsh should be commended for taking decisive action on this!

      government has to serve ALL the people

      By on

      Even those nasty rich people that pay for all the nice things we have People w disabilities are not harmed by BHCA'S solution. This is a dumb fight to pick. Don't know if BH is harmed. Let's call it unnecessarily inconvenienced.

      Local busybodies?

      By on

      You call them local busy bodies? I think they're called citizens. And they live there. So they can and should have an opinion. And by the way, this is about collecting federal money and unions and NOT about handicapped access. You really think the city is so concerned about the tiny number of people who use wheelchairs on Joy Street? Or another street? They wheelchairs use the streets, not the sidewalks.

      Read much?

      "We'll pay for them" is, of course, exactly what the neighborhood has been offering for the past couple of years, only to be repeatedly rejected by the city.

      Do you even bother to read the stories you comment on?


      By on

      Why should I? When people will just correct me. You just saved me the time. Thanks! *smirk*

      they said they would pay for them

      By on

      And they say their solution is ADA compliant. And they want to use a more durable material than concrete.

      I don't know why the city is fighting them on this. Makes no sense. Which usually means follow the money. There's more to this story that we are not hearing. The city has an agenda (or a contractor that is a big political supporter).

      This is such a low ticket item - makes no sense that they are fighting this - especially if Beacon Hill is offering to pay - that makes it a no ticket item.

      Reminds me of a similar issue

      By on

      The Neighborhood Assn of the Back Bay asked the MBTA not to build the elevators for Copley where they are now. On Boylston they were concerned that a) they might damage the façade of the library, b) some maps showed a giant steam pipe right where they wanted to build the elevator. On Dartmouth they were concerned about impacts to Old South Church. The suggested solution was to build the elevator on the inbound side further down Boylston near the new entrance to the library and build the outbound elevator across the street.

      The MBTA said NABB hates people with disabilities and the papers ate it up. the MBTA went ahead (as usual) as they damn well pleased.

      In addition to aesthetic issues, the MBTA's contractors cracked at least one of the granite "seats" by the library, ran into a giant steam pipe and I think had to move the elevator location on the inbound side. On the other side they literally cracked an entire wall at Old South requiring over a year of work to repair.

      Maybe we'd be better off just having the neighborhood associations direct repairs!

      As I recall, the NABB claims that they raised those

      By on

      issues about BPL and Old South Church surfaced only AFTER the problems occurred. And, if NABB was so concerned about those matters beforehand, they why didn't THEY hire their own engineers to evaluate those issues and present their findings to the T during the design phase?

      Right, because under our system of "guilty until proven innocent", it always seems to be the project proponent's responsibility to expend their time and money to disprove claims, no matter how preposterous they are.


      And, if NABB was so concerned about those matters beforehand, they why didn't THEY hire their own engineers to evaluate those issues and present their findings to the T during the design phase?

      How about the government agency, whom we the taxpayers are paying to do its job, actually do its job?

      It would seem that the NABB concerns were in fact correct, and not in the slightest "preposterous", no?

      I don't think so

      By on

      This predates my joining the board, but my understanding is that all of these issues were brought up in the planning phase with the MBTA. The MBTA's decisions to reject were mostly financial. Not saying they weren't valid - don't know the details. But it was about money.

      The MBTA made it look like NABB just hated people with disabilities, entirely not the case. The point was never "don't build". It was move one elevator across the street and one elevator a little further down the street. In hindsight with good reason (and the fixes probably cost WAY more than the alternatives).

      Just stop

      We've seen your comments. We know what you worry about. Property values and equity. Your type needs to be run out of town.

      How do you sleep at night?


      By on

      If you get anything REMOTELY resembling that from my comments, you are not paying any attention.

      Taxes so that people can afford to live here long term - fine. Property values and equity - not the least of my concerns (other than how they impact tax rates).

      As for the first - pray that interest rates never increase (or at least not much). The impact of lower interest rates on our taxes has been nothing short of phenomenal.

      It's like they're trying to

      By on

      It's like they're trying to live out every stereotype people have about these beacon hill nimbys. It would only be better if the president of their board was named Lowell Cabot Bulfinch or something along those lines.

      you mean

      By on

      Lowell Cabot Bullfinch, III, Esq. I own a mansion and a yacht.

      Too bad for your stereotype

      Too bad for your stereotype that the most recent bhca chair was a Latina, eh?

      And that the BHCA has played an active and successful role in getting several large properties in the neighborhood developed as subsidized housing rather than as expensive condos.

      Subsidized housing on Beacon Hill?

      By on

      "that the BHCA has played an active and successful role in getting several large properties in the neighborhood developed as subsidized housing rather than as expensive condos."

      Could you please elaborate? Where are the "large properties in the neighborhood developed as subsidized housing"? And please don't give the BHCA credit for the affordable units in projects such as the Saltonstall building. Those weren't developed as affordable housing, the small number of affordable units in that building were required by law.

      Start here

      The BHCA was a primary sponsor of 250 cambridge Street, which, at 64 units, is entirely subsidized. (The BHCA is not involved in the ongoing management of the building).

      Many of the same people who were active in the BHCA were also active in the conversion of the Faneuil school to subsidized ( 40 units) and HIV+ (20 units) housing.

      Beacon House on Myrtle Street has 85 rent subsidized and 32 rent moderated units for seniors.

      The former Bowdoin School has 26 out of its 35 units available for Section 8.

      And the Saltonstall building is not in the district, so it's not relevant one way or the other.

      Wow, a Latina? Welcome to

      By on

      Wow, a Latina? Welcome to the 21st century, Beacon Hill. Does that excuse wasting taxpayer money on fighting an ADA requirement because you disagree with the aesthetics of sidewalk ramps? The public process has played out. They lost. You seem a little obsessed with the topic. Perhaps you're a BH resident. In any event, it would be nice if these folks would move on and let the City spend time and effort on more significant issues.

      Get your story straight

      The neighborhood is not fighting, nor has it ever fought, the ADA requirement. The neighborhood supports ramps; it is the city that has been needlessly dragging the process out, even though it has a no-cost win-win solution right in front of it.

      It's because folks "moved on and let the city spend time and effort on more significant issues" that we got the West End bulldozed and replaced by bland 1960s apartment buildings, that we got Scollay Square bulldozed and replaced by that concrete monstrosity known as "Government Center," and that we got the Esplanade bulldozed and replaced by the mediocre highway that is Storrow Drive.

      On the other hand, it's because people stood their ground and refused to "move on" that we have a nice historic neighborhood rather than more of Charles River Plaza, that route 695 didn't completely gut Cambridge, Somerville, and Roxbury, and that we still have a thriving pushcart market at Haymarket.

      Frankly, time and time again, history have proved the "nimbys" as having been right; I'll throw my lot in with them over the Robert Moses' and John Volpe's of this world.

      Load of crap

      By on

      Go sell that crap at Haymarket.

      Cape Wind, buildings taller than 15 stories (or whatever the shadow limit is) in Copley, a total lack of drug treatment centers, medical marijuana dispensaries, burying the Pike for new development...


      Do it

      By on

      And I hope the court decides that yellow is more compliant than even the red Walsh would have used.

      Enough already with the granite

      By on

      "Dark gray tiles will be installed in historic districts such as the Old Port and Stroudwater while bright yellow tiles, embedded in concrete, will be used in all other locations."

      I alert you to the word "yellow". That is one of the sticking points with the denizens of the Hill. And they don't want bricks to be removed or trees cut down to make the streets ADA compliant so a wheelchair can fit through...and

      ENOUGH. Good luck with 'em going to court. I am sure the lawyers for the city will find more than enough cases on point where historic districts complied with the ADA requirements (including the compliance by our own historic Back Bay) that the fools on the hill will end up looking just like fools on the hill. The down side is that this whole mess will get dragged out even more and folks with those mobility issues will, gosh darn, just have to suck it up.

      I always love this

      By on

      When people link to articles they don't read (and even quote the sentence that tells them they are wrong):

      Dark gray tiles will be installed in historic districts such as the Old Port and Stroudwater while bright yellow tiles, embedded in concrete, will be used in all other locations.

      Gray in the historic districts. Yellow elsewhere.

      You don't even have to read - there's a picture in the article.

      Are you the contractor who loses out if they use granite?

      Oh, I know you do...

      By on

      I must of made your day!

      Did you read the BIG headline:

      Portland’s Historic Preservation Board approves installation of about 50 gray and yellow ramps.

      Again: The Historic Preservation Board approves installation of about 50 gray and yellow ramps.

      And, yes, I did read the article. I am trying to compare and contrast here between the attitudes involved. Aside from that, "the all other locations" are probably within said historic district from the subject of the article which is "The Historic Preservation Board approves installation of about 50 gray and yellow ramps."

      At least you did not mention the word "granite". Doh. Darn. You did.

      Compare and contrast

      By on

      Portland agreed to gray on brick. Would they have objected to granite (oops, I said it again - call me Brittany) if the local historic assn. or biz assn. said they'd pay? Probably not.

      I think the city is being VERY high handed here. BH seems to have a very reasonable solution (acceptable in Portland for example) and they are willing to pay for it. As Bob L has pointed out - the attitude adjustment needed isn't Beacon Hill's - it's city hall's.

      Portland, Maine

      By on

      Cambridge has these too. Look at parts of the neighborhood east of Mass Ave between Harvard and Porter.

      The neighbors aren't asking for some whack-o thing like these blog posts suggest.

      Disclaimer: I live in Allston and don't really care about what happens on Beacon Hill. Just noting that these "special" brick ramps aren't that big of a deal for other cities.

      That's Portland, Maine, Whyaduck!

      Portland Oregon has some surprisingly old neighborhoods, but Portland Maine has a really ancient downtown area.

      And what they did in that ancient downtown area is very much relevant to the historic look of Beacon Hill.

      I think it's funny they yammered on

      ..without noticing that.

      People are in such a rush to display empiricism that they forget to be empirical.

      They race to rationalize while making a hash of reason and the details get gummed up.

      Portland ME does have lots of old brick stuff but they aren't as stuffy about it.

      Isn't the Portland OR daily called 'The Oregonian?'

      For those too lazy to Google

      Beacon Hill Civic Association (BHCA) position:

      • We have always supported accessibility on Beacon Hill.
      • We have always supported improvements to our ramps and bringing into compliance with the current ADA standards including the addition of the dimpled tactile pad.
      • We have never disagreed with the size, shape or the number of ramps on Beacon Hill.
      • The only issue we have with the City’s proposal is the materials (concrete and plastic).

      and more about the proposed solution.


      By on

      Number four is the kicker, is it not?

      And honestly, dragging this out for as long as they did, makes it difficult for me to believe that they are totally sincere on numbers 1-3.

      How is the BHCA "dragging this out?"

      Isn't it the city that's dragging it about?

      What about the city showing up at a supposed "explain the project to the neighbors and gather feedback" meeting without any pictures or diagrams showing the city's proposal?

      If that's not a blatant raised middle finger to the public, I don't know what is.

      Yeah, you're right

      If it weren't for those busybodies back in the 1920s and 1930s, Boston could have a nice modern downtown like Dallas.

      Interesting you mention the past

      By on

      Because the West End, just across Cambridge Street, is a pretty good example of how wealth vs the poor played out in Boston back in the day. It's a wonder they didn't plow under the North End as well.

      Well yeah...

      By on

      and isn't it too bad that it did? Now you have instead acres of sterile, pricey condos instead of funky, old school urban housing. Ironically I've known several BH residents who ended up there in their old age (or at River House on lower Pinckney--or is it Revere?) because of the elevators and garages they needed once their mobility became limited. A five-story townhouse or a narrow tenement is pretty tricky to navigate once you hit a certain age.

      Not sure what your point is?

      The very same sorts of people who are being vilified as "NIMBY" now, were fighting against the destruction of the West End back then, and were also vilified as standing in the way of progress, idealistic eggheads, etc.

      Actually, Bob...

      By on

      you might want to revisit the history.

      They were not "fighting against the destruction of the West End", which, as we know, was destructed. It was only when their area was under threat that the NIMBYs became concerned. (As corrected mentioned in the post by Kaz.)

      After witnessing the destruction of the West End by “urban redevelopment” in the '60s, the BHCA succeeded in getting the South Slope and later the North Slope and the Flat of the Hill, designated as historic districts – thus preventing the neighborhood from meeting the same fate as its neighbor."

      Actually, whyaduck...

      You might find that, although the bhca *as an organization* did not become involved in the West End, you'll find that many of the same people who worked for the preservation of Beacon Hill had also put a lot of their blood, sweat, and tears into the unsuccessful attempt to save the West End. They got better organized and were more successful the second and third times around.

      You're drawing a distinction without a difference.

      Which Beacon Hill?

      By on

      The busybodies of the 20's only cared about preserving their South Slope. It wasn't until the realized they needed a buffer zone that they included the Flats and then 30 years later, the North Slope.

      You are under estimating Beacon Hill

      What makes you so sure there aren't prostitute working there regularly now? It wasn't that long ago that people in Beacon Hill were complaining about condoms showing when they were out for a walk with the dog. I think condoms and needles still show up in walkway between South Russell and Smith Court.

      EDIT: Holmes Alley

      beacon hill

      By on


      Sauce for the goose?

      Of course, if it were any other neighborhood fighting against "we don't need to listen to the stinking public" government action, you'd be cheering them on.

      Reply to Bob Leponge (I love the name!)

      By on

      Bob, I'm guessing that you may live in the Beacon Hill area. And I agree with you, the city should have listened when you folks proposed an ADA compliant alternative. But I'm also guessing they already paid for those bumpy yellow pads and they are sitting in a warehouse somewhere for City workers to plop into the curb cutouts.


      But I'm also guessing they already paid for those bumpy yellow pads and they are sitting in a warehouse somewhere for City workers to plop into the curb cutouts.

      So, over what amounts to a restocking fee from some supplier, we should need to look at some kind of out-of-place, poorly-engineered, yellow-paint-wears-off-in 18-months crap for the next 50 years?

      Ah, yes

      By on

      the truth comes out. You and your fellow denizens on the hill (assuming that you do live on the hill) just don't want to look at those gosh darn yellow pads as they are "out-of-place." This really is the reason, is it not?

      So what's wrong with that?

      So, what, exactly, is wrong with people who live in a neighborhood, who have invested their money, years of their time, and their political capital on constantly supporting and improving the livability of the neighborhood, and who are paying for city services through their taxes, asking their elected government to make the sidewalk ramps they plan to look at and walk on for the rest of their lives out of durable, ADA-compliant masonry instead of cheap, temporarily ADA-compliant plastic crap?

      Why do you say "the truth comes out?" Was that some kind of secret or surprise to anyone?

      The BHCA's website, http:/

      By on

      The BHCA's website, , makes their position sound very reasonable.

      To summarize, they want wire-cut bricks for the ramps, and grey concrete pavers for the tactile pads.

      They say the concrete pavers are cheaper than yellow plastic pads, and last much longer. I'd tend to agree on the durability, since I've seen plenty of plastic pads which are cracked or have large holes after just a few months.

      While the brick ramps would cost more than concrete, Rep. Livingstone's message says the cost would be negligible -- an additional 1 to 3% of the overall project cost.

      South End Historic District

      By on

      seems to have the standard yellow there. They are currently installing the new ramps at the corner of Berkeley and Chandler with a combination of new brick and a concrete leader to funnel users onto the ramp. They look perfectly fine and the brick blends in well with the previous brickwork at the end of the project.

      If anything, I would love to see all of the bricks go away. Many times bricks are broken, missing or uneven, and they're downright treacherous in the winter as they often freeze before the other surfaces. The "penguin walk" is quite common.

      These people are absolutely

      By on

      These people are absolutely disgusting and are disturbingly detached from reality. It's not like the city is planning to replace the crappy, uneven, historic brick sidewalks with flat cement. Fuck all of these people.

      No, not at all

      It's not like the city is planning to replace the crappy, uneven, historic brick sidewalks with flat cement.

      It's not like the city didn't try to do exactly that once before.

      Try Harder

      By on

      The city needs to go down that route again. And this time don't back down. Those Beacon Hill residents complaining about this should consider themselves lucky I am not in charge because I would just Le Corbusier their ass. Or kick them all out and turn it into a colonial theme park with Ye Olde Beer Slide down Joy St.

      Unfortunately for you,

      By on

      The city needs to go down that route again. And this time don't back down. Those Beacon Hill residents complaining about this should consider themselves lucky I am not in charge because I would just Le Corbusier their ass. Or kick them all out and turn it into a colonial theme park with Ye Olde Beer Slide down Joy St.

      Unfortunately for you, your style of urban planning went out of style rather abruptly on April 28th or May 2, 1945, depending upon how you count.

      I agree.

      We should just fricken get rid of all this old stuff already, and put in nice wide streets, with convenient strip malls, and plenty of parking. That's what people want.

      False choice

      By on

      Because there's nowhere between dangerous brickwork and strip malls where Beacon Hill might reside just fine.

      Actually I would propose less parking

      By on

      Actually I would propose Charles street have no parking, 2 lanes of traffic [one each way not one way], and wide, concrete sidewalks like the Back Bay [to better facilitate all users and sidewalk cafes and such].


      By on

      So if the BHCA pays for all or some of the work, who is responsible for upkeep? Who is responsible if someone falls and sues? What part does each party play during construction?

      There has to be a legal side of this we're not hearing about.

      These are the ramps being put

      By on

      These are the ramps being put in at the Plymouth waterfront. They havent finished the work, putting up ducky light poles with gas lantern like lamps but are LED today as I scruntinized the process. They even have put in a compass.I think with respect to Plymouth , they trump Beacon Hill with historic, they have the Rock , after all, and much better eating too!

      Nice compass ,

      Added feature , already nearby for those that dig trains, and is in the Sarge's clock park!