Hey, there! Log in / Register
Church says shadows from Back Bay tower worth $19 million in compensation
By adamg on Mon, 10/02/2017 - 9:00am
The Globe reports that Old South Church wants the developer of the proposed tower at Back Bay station to pay the money as recompense for the potential damage shadows would cause the church by reducing the amount of sunlight that now dries out moisture on the building.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
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
Fairly Naked Shakedown
I'm sure the congregants of the New Old South Church are very nice people. However, we have tax exempt organization trying to stop a company, who very nicely put away their Dr. Who trashcan robot at The Pru, that pays a lot of taxes and provides a lot of jobs (i.e. - helping the working families of Boston) in this city up against a brazen stick up attempt.
St. Cecilia's, if the Weiner proposal gets built, will soon have its light blocked, yet they solider on, somehow this congregation cannot?
My favorite quote is "We Don't See The Science Behind It". That can be said on a lot of different levels with this story.
If the Old South Church really wanted to help families in this city, they would sell their site and meet in a dusty old hall and talk about God, while donating the proceeds from the sale of their site to the "poor families of Boston". That doesn't fit the narrative I guess.
Huh?
If you knew about their work you'd see provide tremendous services to all sorts of people in Boston directly from the church. They aren't just a food pantry or welfare office.
Not sure if they have validity to their claim of needing sunlight but the suggestion they'd help more people without owning the church is laughable. There's more to helping people than just having a fat wallet.
You Are Absolutley Right About the Wallet Size
Let me ask you this, do they need nearly 1/2 acre of Back Bay real estate and a 65,000 SF building to do it in, or can their services to the needy be better accomplished in a smaller space closer to their clients and congregants?
I am only playing devil's advocate here because I appreciate the (their) need to accomplish their service to the poor, yet somehow the corner of Dartmouth and Boylston, doesn't have and hasn't for a very long time had a lot of poor people, save for the homeless which have slept for years. They are allowed to sleep there because the church allows them too, which is very noble, but if there goal is to provide housing, maybe the place with some of the most expensive real estate in the country might not be the best place for them or their clients, who by their very nature might be better served in a more down and out place in the city.
My catechism is a wee rusty, but I don't remember stories of Jesus chilling in the Nazareth Four Seasons. He was out in the poorer part of town.
Yes, they need it
The church is spiritually important to them and has existed longer then most buildings in Boston and will outlive whatever new development goes nearby. It is a spiritual and cultural anchor of Boston. All this is worth more then it's cash value and can't be duplicated elsewhere for any amount of money.
Beyond that, they offer tremendously valuable programs to people with mental health problems, people with disease (HIVAIDS among others), and dozens of other programs not served elsewhere. It's not just "housing the homeless". I've been greatly impressed by the devotion of their volunteers and staff.
The new developer plans to cash in on the currently hot real estate bubble and couldn't give a shit less about Boston. The church has the opposite priorities.
No, they don't need it. If
No, they don't need it. If the church did not already own the building, and instead had $40 million in the bank, would it make sense for them to buy a parcel in the most expensive part of the city and construct a low-rise building? Probably not. They'd more likely buy a floor of a building downtown, or buy land further away.
When faced with the decision to sell something, you should look at it backwards. "Would I buy this asset at this price?" That takes emotion out of the equation.
Off by a factor of at least 4
The church is in the Back Bay Historic district - even if it ceases to be a church, you can't tear it down or even change the exterior. Lots of luck cutting that space up into condos, offices or even a boutique hotel.
You might get like $10 million for the space if you are lucky.
I'm not a parishioner there - but the people I know who are LOVE the place. And they do good work - AND I think they have a preschool/daycare for kids in the area. They are also frequently open for concerts and even allow larger neighborhood meetings to be held there on very important issues. While the library was closed for renovations we even voted there.
Bottom line - keep on keepin' on Old South. You do good work. And thank you!
Also keep in mind
Old South sustained significant damage to the east wall in 2008 caused by the MBTA work at Copley station. Repairs had to wait until the Copley work was completed in 2011, and necessitated removal of 1600 organ pipes. It's understandable that church officials would be proactive in protecting their property from possible damage from another major construction project.
Your Catchesim
Is super rusty.
Sounds like you want to ship these homeless people out to a poorer part of town - where they'd "better served". Not in your back yard, huh?
Methinks Jesus wouldn't "chill" with that. Hypocrite.
I Grew Up In The "Poorer" Part of Town
I grew up in the place where churches do a lot, a real lot of good, just like the Old South, yet they don't try to shake down others that might be building over 800 feet from their front door.
I only wish I could afford to live in the Back Bay, or the South End, or JP, or South Boston, well maybe not Southie.
I used to work holding doors for some very wealthy people in the Back Bay and Beacon Hill. The look of "I'm better off than you, servant" kind of grates on you after awhile.
So nyah nyah nyah nyah.
Your whiny inferiority complex...
... is kinda grating too.
Sounds reasonable, actually
It's very odd that you're using St. Cecilia's lack of action as a reason that this other church should *also* not act. If I don't object to something, does that mean that you can't?
You also might be interested to know that in some jurisdiction, there is a notion of right to light. So this isn't unprecedented or anything.
The Weiner proposal is
The Weiner proposal is northwest of St. C's. Huh? The monstrosity FCCS is building is already blocking way more light from St. C's parish than anything suggested north of the building.
That's good to know
The condos going up next to me should be able to afford giving me $25k. Their shadows will not let my shingles dry out.
Old South Church is ...
... an architectural treasure and a welcoming space in an increasingly unwelcoming city. I've been inside many times for the free organ recitals and to enjoy the light coming in from the windows and have never had religion preached to me once. It has a front garden space with character unlike any corporate landscaper could create. No sterile anonymous glass tower with a noisy and supposedly public lobby patrolled by security guards will ever give any of that to Boston but it will suck out more than sunlight and air.
http://www.thestraddler.com
http://www.thestraddler.com/201514/piece2.php
Once again we have that
Once again we have that NIMBYism is more important than building more housing.
Let me tell you something
not everyone needs to live in the City. Build housing for the working class and build it affordable.
Not to worry
Nimbyism hasn't blocked one of these projects in 15 years (a Millennium project on Mass Ave was the last one that got stopped - I think around 2003)
Neighborhoods can often provide important suggestions for improvement - but due to the dollars involved - and the importance of tax revenue to the city - they don't get materially changed.
If you'd like to understand more about why - you can read my article on the inside back of this past Friday's Boston Guardian entitled "Ghost in the Machine" - sorry - I think it's only available in a hard copy.
With respect, those who make very dubious claims like
"shadows will eventually destroy our building" should be required to prove those claims beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, "burden of proof" is supposed to lie with the accuser (in this case, the church), not the accused (the developer).
This is just another example of NIMBYism disguised as environmentalism.
Like I said
Won't matter.
This is getting built, eventually.
The church may sue if they have grounds. The courts will decide that.
None of this gets done through the proper zoning process because there isn't one. The BPDA makes up the rules on a case by case basis. That's the real problem.
Nimbyism hasn’t stopped projects?
Let’s meet up at the entrance to Columbus Center and discuss this more, except the neighbors hobbled that so much that by the time of groundbreaking capital had dried up, so we’ll have no place to meet.
Sure
And what you'll find is a crooked incompetent developer doomed that project.. it was never happening without state aid which was only happening with bra money. And you'll note that's not an acronym.
Oh my God, the bra money
I've come to conflate that with liquor license approval because of the "preacher's handshake" that did Chuck Turner in, but yes, the state aid was key, too.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the state money got approved in the end, but as JohnAKeith points out, the developers dragged their feet so there was money for the infrastructure for a development that there was not private capital for.
Not sure
But no air rights project has ever been able to get over the hurdle of building a deck without help from the government. Columbus Center was never happening without it.
Point made
Perhaps the exception to the rule or just the rule, hard to tell with that one. Yes, the neighbor(s) were arguing against it but the developer himself was going very slowly and when the economy turned (and after construction costs had spiked) there wasn't enough to go around.
Your argument would have more validity (but I'm not saying it doesn't) if we weren't seeing the same thing happening with Fenway Center which hasn't broken ground (or, built a deck) even with approvals in hand.