Dow Jones Interactive

EDITORIAL
Op-Ed; Process plagues Columbus Center
THOMAS M. KEANE JR.

02/07/2003
Boston Herald
All Editions
029
(Copyright 2003)

Almost everyone agrees that the Boston extension of the Massachusetts Turnpike is an ugly mess. They also agree that fixing it - covering it over, constructing buildings and knitting back sundered neighborhoods - is desirable and possible.

But that's not to say it's easy.

The Pike has been pushing development plans for its air rights since 1990. But nothing much happened until 1997, when, after much political machination, Boston and the Turnpike agreed to a review process that gave both a say over what would get built. Then, in 1998, a city-organized blue-ribbon panel kicked off a comprehensive planning process. Its report in 2000, called "A Civic Vision," laid out, parcel by parcel, guidelines for development along the 44 acres over the Pike.

The test case for that vision came quickly, in the form of a proposal from developers Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin. Their project, Columbus Center, was to be built on two parcels between Clarendon and Berkeley streets in the South End.

The city and Turnpike promptly put together a review group called a Citizens Advisory Committee, known by the ugly acronym CAC. Drawn from nominations made by business and neighborhood groups, the CAC began an exhaustive process of analysis, meeting 116 times in two years.

It has been remarkably effective. The original project, with two tall towers, was a non-starter. Now it stretches across two more parcels, extending past Arlington Street. There is only one tower. Residential developments on the other parcels mesh nicely with abutting neighborhoods. Moreover, the design - from architectural powerhouse Childs, Bertman, Tseckares - is striking and elegant.

And then, when it should have been flush with success, the once consensus-driven CAC fell apart, riven by sniping and controversy. A split developed, with seven members (mostly from Bay Village) supporting the project and four (from South End and Back Bay) opposed.

Here's how it played out. Four members of the CAC filed a freedom of information request demanding to see Cassin/Winn's internal financials. One of those dissidents was Tony Gordon, long-time chair of the Back Bay Architectural Commission. Gordon had been nominated by a business group that supported the project. Upset with him, the business group asked the Boston Redevelopment Authority to replace Gordon with its own employee - which it promptly did.

Big mistake. There was a mini-firestorm, some other CAC members protested and, after much to-and-froing, the BRA capitulated. Gordon is now back on.

Yet the imbroglio raises an important question: Who do the CAC members represent? Should they follow the command of those who nominated them, or should they act independently, using their best judgment to arrive at decisions?

The BRA and many other interest groups argue the former. And of course, in practice - Gordon being the exception - most CAC members will at least pay close attention to those who nominated them.

But the extreme view the BRA countenanced - that members can be replaced at nominating groups' whim - is wrongheaded. Turning CAC members into mere mouthpieces for special interests ultimately calls into question the whole idea behind these review groups. The theory is that people of good will meet and spend an enormous amount of time becoming educated about a project. They propose changes, compromise and try to come up with a solution that appeals to the common good - not just to some narrow interest.

There is a second problem as well. It is an iron law of development that developers will always propose a building that is as big and dense as possible. (It is also pretty much an iron law that neighborhood groups will want it to be as small and unobtrusive as possible.) How does one reconcile those divergent goals? It comes down to economics: How large must a project be to make financial sense?

Developers, however, are reluctant to share economic data. That's understandable - developers don't want their competitors knowing the guts of their business.

The obvious compromise is to give the data to an independent third party who keeps it confidential but can report on the meaning of the numbers to the CAC. That was supposed to happen. Somewhere, however, the process broke down, prompting the dissidents' freedom- of-information demand.

The city was right to refuse that request, but it never even tried to work out a compromise. That was also a mistake. CACs function only if members think that they have the data they need to make informed decisions - to call developers' bluffs, as it were.

Most expect that a majority of the CAC will issue a favorable report of the project in March. But that shouldn't satisfy anyone. The Cassin/Winn project, remember, is only the first. There are 23 parcels in all. If the Pike and the city want the rest developed, they're going to have to rethink the way they treat Citizens Advisory Committees.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.