A Pine Street Inn marathon

...he wants anyone who's homeless or appears disheveled in any way to stop hanging around neighborhoods and making his real estate prices go down.

He cried and took down the post after a bunch of us called him on it, but surely people remember his post. It was about how Copley Square is not a good area, because there are "homeless people" there. And since we can presume that John A. Keith doesn't go around asking people whether they have a home, he actually was referring to people who present as having mental illness. And clearly an area can't be a good area if people with disabilities choose to spend time there, because they wouldn't of course have the same sort of taste in neighborhoods as everyone else.

Pine Street is a great organization. Donate directly to them instead of helping John A. Keith desperately try to resurrect his street cred.

http://1smootshort.blogspot.com

Wow.

At first read, I was almost sickened by the response this post received.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing I made a mistake about was backing off my original post, not sticking up for what I said.

I think my post about Copley Square was mostly accurate. Hey, my opinion is my opinion. There is an element of unsafety there caused by groups of people who are either homeless, mentally ill, or both. The skatepunks are a problem, roving gangs of kids who have now started to hang out at the corner of Dartmouth & Boylston are, too. I am a member of the community, and if I see a problem, I'll point it out.

I feel the need to defend myself, although doing so will only allow this conversation to continue, when, in fact, I'd like it to go away.

Having said that, here's what I think.

Eeka, you're a very unpleasant person with many issues. You make opinions based on selective use of the facts; this is not wise, I think it's something you should work on.

To define me by what I do for a living is short-sighted. I am a real estate agent. That's not at odds with my personal beliefs or what I choose to do or not do with charities.

I live on Tremont Street, two blocks from Pine Street Inn. I am surrounded by housing projects and low-income housing. I am a part of a neighborhood that sees, everyday, many groups of people of different levels of income. I am a part of this community.

You are impugning my integrity which hurts me and is insulting.

Pine Street Inn asked me to run, not the other way around. They asked me because of charity work I did for them last year, raising funds (from others) for them and for St Francis House. I chose these two charities on purpose, because I am well aware of the needs of the homeless and recently homeless. I have spent time and money on charities every year, regardless of the job I have. I don't make note of it and don't advertise it. It's not "good for business", because most if not all my clients have no idea what I do (nor do they care!).

Many people have jobs in many different industries and don't contribute to charities. You draw a link between my job and giving to charities. There is no link. I give to charities every year, both money and time. It's because of who I am that I do this.

Things are often more complex than they seem (or than we wish). It's easy to pigeon-hole people. I have an unblemished record of support for those less-fortunate than I am. My deeds are stronger than my words.

For me to raise a simple issue about the safety and aesthetics of Copley Square certainly doesn't warrant an attack of the level (and length) of yours.

Pine Street Inn asked me to raise money for them. They require me to raise $3,000; if I don't raise the $3,000 from others, I will be required to contribute the difference, out of pocket. They already have my American Express card number, actually. Since I'm only at $1,150 and it's already March 21, I assume I'm going to be short and need to pay a substantial amount out of pocket. Seeing as I have not made any money this year from real estate, this is going to cause financial hardship, but I am willing to do so, since my financial situation is less tenuous than a homeless or near-homeless person.

(Pine Street Inn does have bibs this year; they got them donated at the last minute, so, yes, I am running on their behalf.)

I wish I hadn't deleted the post, so we could all dissect it line by line. It wasn't pretty, for sure. Probably because it left a lot open to interpretation (and misinterpretation) and also because I bit off more than I could chew. My analysis of "whether or not Copley Square works" was an attempt to compare it to other city squares, across the US and Europe. Since I'm not an urban planner or sociologist, I drew on personal surveillance and a limited knowledge of urban planning / design to draw conclusions.

It's awesome that one person's blog entry can be used as the basis to know everything about one person, about their soul, etc. It's also a really really poor way to do so.

Some people have a perennial chip on their shoulders, and love the chance to hack at others over and over again, whenever they get the chance. So be it.

If anyone would like to discuss the specific issue we are talking about, please go to my website for my contact information.

I have to say it again, though. I am so offended that someone would say I do something simply for personal gain. It's terrible. It's the worst thing you could say about me. It makes me feel terrible, and angry, now, actually.

For the life of me, I can't imagine I would ever say that having homeless people in Copley Square brings down real estate prices. I've never considered that idea to begin with. Plus, it doesn't even make any sense, seeing as Copley Square is in Back Bay.

You are just pulling that idea out of your a**, commenter.

And, if you'll read below, I think I specifically said that public squares can work if all people use them. My question was whether or not Copley Square was "successful", meaning did everyone use it (and my argument was that not everyone did/does).

Also, if I read it accurately, her complaint wasn't that I didn't like homeless people but that many homeless people are also mentally ill, therefore, if you follow the logic, I was saying that I don't like the mentally ill, or, in her words, the disabled. And, that by saying this I was criticizing people who couldn't help themselves.

Again, I think that's what she meant, although I'm not speaking for her.

I don't have a copy of the original post. I tried to find a cached copy of it online but it's not out there.

Here's the closest thing I have to the original post, I found it by using my Google Desktop. I have two versions; I'm not sure which one I actually posted. (I'm guessing version 2, because it's the one where I'm more sarcastic and also the one where I attached the photos I had taken that day.)

VERSION ONE:

A couple weeks ago there was a post on the Universal Hub about Copley Square, and all the “hawkers” “hawking” their “swag” (aka, crap) to unsuspecting passersby.

It made me think about something I’ve often contemplated.

Does Copley Square work as a urban square?

Well, I don’t know. I’m not knowledgeable enough in urban studies, etc., to be able to give an educated opinion.

Not like that’s going to stop me.

I’d say, no, it doesn’t work.

On its surface, it does.

Lots of people go through there, on a daily basis.

It has lots of pretty buildings around it, with plenty of old architecture.

So, that’s good.

But, of course, there are problems.

The square is underutilized. Very few business people spend any time in the square, even during the warm, summer months. Instead, on any one day, you’ll find a group of drug addicts, in one corner, a fair number of homeless and/or mentally ill people lounging on the benches, and a marauding gang of skate punks using the fountain as a playground.

A small band of people gather at the Boston Arts half-price ticket booth, to buy tickets to the theater or to see a concert; they don’t seem to spend anytime hanging out, once they’ve made their purchases, however.

Do business people and tourists avoid Copley Square because they feel unwelcomed, or do they just prefer going elsewhere for lunch, or to meet-up with friends?

I’m not sure, but I do know this: Copley Square can, and should do better.

I blame the buildings that take up three sides of the square. The Trinity Church, while attractive (to some), does not bring a steady flow of traffic into the square. Likewise, the Copley (Fairmont) Hotel is like a wall. In fact, most people enter the hotel from around the corner, on Dartmouth Street. And, the Boston Public Library, on the third side, is another barrier. Similar to the hotel, most people enter the BPL from a different entrance, around the corner on Boylston Street.

Traffic moves pretty well, around the square. There is a bit of congestion in front of the hotel, from cabs dropping off fares and from people exiting MBTA buses. There are fewer lanes of traffic in front of the Public Library, thanks to our Mayor, but I don’t think this has improved things. In fact, the extra space in front of the library serves only to spread out the pedestrian flow, more. Traffic on Boylston Street barely moves, during the morning hours - traffic is bumper-to-bumper, from 8:30 AM - 11:30 AM. During the afternoon, however, things move fairly well, at least up to Clarendon Street.

In some ways, congestion would be better. The way things are now, we just have different groups of people traveling in completely different directions, no one converging on the square, for any period of time.

It’s a shame. But, in fact, a lot of squares I have visited fail to succeed. I don’t think Union Square in San Francisco works. Neither does Trafalgar Square, in London, in my opinion.

VERSION TWO:

A couple weeks ago there was a post on the Universal Hub about Copley Square, and all the “hawkers” “hawking” their “swag” (aka, crap) to unsuspecting passersby.

It made me think more about something I’ve often contemplated.

Does Copley Square work as a urban square?

Well, I don’t know. I’m not knowledgeable enough in urban studies, etc., to be able to give an educated opinion.

Not like that’s going to stop me.

I’d say, no, it doesn’t work.

On its surface, it does.

Lots of people go through there, on a daily basis.

It has lots of pretty buildings around it, with plenty of old architecture.

So, that’s good.

But, of course, there are problems.

It’s underused. People pass through the square, they don’t go into the square.

This has been addressed, over the years, by changing the traffic flow, by changing the pedestrian paths and moving the water fountain, and by adding greenery, etc.

The mayor decided, several years ago, to remove a lane of traffic, in an effort to improve the flow of people and to make the area more friendly to walkers.

I’d say that everyone’s hard work has not paid off.

(People will inevitably compare this to Post Office Square, in the financial district. I’d say that Post Office Square works, somewhat, because it’s used, a lot, during the summer months. It’s nice to look at, too. The only drawback to Post Office Square is that it is isolated from the areas most people use, plus it’s not necessarily a “public” square, being that it’s maintained by a private entity.)

So, what makes me think it doesn’t work?

Well, let’s talk about drug addiction.

If you’ve been through Copley Square, you’ve no doubt been subjected to tens, if not hundreds of drug addicts wandering around.

The area is also popular with homeless people.

And, crazy people.

And, those rotten kids on their skateboards.

A public square can be successful, of course, with this kind of activity. In fact, some squares are probably improved because of it.

Not Copley Square. That’s because, beyond these people, very few others spend any time in the square.

Blocking off another lane of traffic, which the mayor did, only brings more distance between people and the square. It’s like a barrier has been constructed to one side.

I’d also say that, shudder, having huge buildings on three sides does nothing to improve the square - they detract from it.

The Boston Public Library’s main entrance is on Boylston Street, in the newer (ugh) wing. Do people even know they can enter from the old?

The Copley Plaza Fairmont Hotel is on another side - very little activity there, plus, most people (based on the traffic jams) enter through the side entrance, not the front.

The third side has the Trinity Church, which is under-utilized. I know it’s heresy to say, but I am ambivalent about the building. I mean, what’s the point?

There are stores and commercial space in the buildings on the fourth side, and these bring in people, at least.

So, what do people think?

(Could this post be any more rambling?)

Additional pics:

Hi, Zack & Cody!

That old church.

Skate park, in distance.

I find it interesting that he's running for a charitable cause he doesn't seem to believe in. Making rude and dispariging comments about the homeless on the web to rent a home does not a champion for homeless folks make. I would rather he take a class in diversity and cultural respect and class/socio-economic privilege than run a faux-marathon to boost his ratings.

Honestly, what some people won't do to get their name in neons!