Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cambridge sign battle going ballistic
By adamg on Wed, 09/15/2010 - 7:08am
Nothing is easy in the People's Republic; check out the Vegas-on-the-Charles drawing one resident says could happen if the city council approves larger commercial signs on buildings in certain business districts.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Adam, if you're going to post
Adam, if you're going to post about this, you gotta put up the backstory, too. This isn't the usual Cambridge impasse, or some alliance of anti-corporate forces and NIMBYite yuppies. (Although the Charles River Conservancy did decide to weigh in, it hasn't made a persuasive case that the new ordinance would actually have a negative impact on the river views, nor is there any apparent groundswell of opposition.)
At bottom, this is a new chapter in a long-running feud between a large and profitable corporation, and its landlord, which would prefer to have an even larger and more profitable corporation as a tenant. InterSystems cleverly adduced that this would give it added leverage; block the signage, and reduce the relative attractiveness of Microsoft as a tenant.
It's an interesting dispute. It just has nothing to do with Vegas-on-the-Charles.
So what's the real story then?
The original article is written in such a scattered way that I'm having trouble making sense of what you say is the real story here. It sounds like:
• The building at 1 Memorial Drive currently houses both Microsoft and InterSystems.
• Microsoft wants to put their name on the building (but won't say so on the record).
• There were three "conspirators" at the meeting, two in suits, two of them named (the CEO of InterSystems, and a PR consultant they hired). It's unclear who the third "conspirator" was -- possibly the head of the Charles River Conservancy, though this person specifically denies having anything to do with the other two people -- or whether or not the third conspirator had on one of the suits, or what the significance or otherwise is of the suits in the first place. (Did I mention how badly written this article is?)
• The owner of 1 Memorial Drive, as far as I can tell, is never mentioned at all in the article. It's impossible from this writeup to tell who this person is, what their stance on the matter is, or anything else.
• If part of the "conspiracy" here is for the unnamed landlord to kick out InterSystems and let Microsoft have the whole building, complete with their logo on the roof, nothing in the article would lead the reader to this one way or the other.
• Now that I re-read it, the article doesn't actually say what InterSystem wants, other than a single parenthetical remark, already noted above, claiming that Microsoft wants a sign and Microsoft themselves refuse to comment. But what does InterSystems want? Implicitly, by being lumped in as a co-conspirator with saveourskyline.org & the Charles River Conservancy, they don't want signs.
All of this comes out of parsing a handful of paragraphs in the middle of the article, the bulk of which never otherwise refers to these issues. From what you say, the real story is the dispute between InterSystems, Microsoft, and the owner of 1 Memorial Drive, and everything else is the side show. An article on that would be more illuminating here.
Extra, extra, read all about it...
...right here.
Money quote:
The whole thing's tied up in expensive litigation. And this battle over the sign ordinance is just another front in the ongoing war, complete with a ginned-up astroturf opposition group.
But many residents and others
So there were several well-attended hearings, but the opponents are saying that that process is being rushed? Classic NIMBY blocking stall. Demand more hearings, get more committees involved, keep taking more bites of the apple until you exhaust your opponent.
In these cases, there should always be a drop dead date set for opponents from the start. The system should not be allowed to be gamed by throwing a monkey wrench into the works.
a little illumination
I used to work at Intersystems several years ago. Before Microsoft ever came to 1 Memorial Drive, they already had a passionate hatred of all things Microsoft there, even though they were using their products and designed their software to work with Windows. I was even warned never to mention the word "Microsoft" around one particular VP.
When they found out Microsoft was going to move into the building, they freaked out because they thought Microsoft was their biggest competitor and enemy. Frankly, I don't think Microsoft really cares much about them. But the paranoia was very real, and quite amusing.
I'm pretty sure this is more about Intersystems wanting Microsoft out of "their" building than anything else.
Cambridge Sign ordinance
The City Council should act immediately and approve this zoning change regulating signage. The opposition is rooted in a personal vendetta of Mr. Ragon against his landlord and fellow tenant.
These proposed changes came from careful policy consideration by design professionals – not from political dirty tricks and spin masters.
Do people realize that Intersystems donated over $5000 to the Charles River Conservancy and that Ms. Schwartzman is on their Board? Ragon and Schwartzman have manipulated well intentioned people and used them to promote their self interested agenda. Shame on them!
The council should act swiftly in the spirit of good policy making – and not personal feuds.
They can have a reasonable
They can have a reasonable sign at ground level, like Google two blocks away does.
And also, "design professionals" are whores.
Ground-level signs
Intersystems and Microsoft both have ground-level signs at 1 Mem Drive already; it was part of a compromise back when Microsoft wanted its name there