Back Bay Sun 9/21/2007
Depending on who you talk to on the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) about a recent proposal by Boston Properties and Avalon Bay Communities to build two more towers on the Prudential Center site, the proposed buildings are either too tall, or just what the community needs.
At least those are the initial reactions of some of the committee’ members following a presentation by Boston Properties last week. However, committee members admit that a lengthy public process will determine the final approvals of any project that goes forward on the site.
The proposal, which will cost an estimated $192 million to bring to fruition, calls for a 30-story residential tower on Exeter Street across from the rear-side of the Boston Public Library, as well as a 19-story office tower at 888 Boylston Street, adjacent to the John B. Hynes Convention Center.
State Representative Martha Walz, whose district abuts the Prudential Center property, said this week that her concerns about the project are centered around the proposed building height of each of the two buildings and how those new buildings will work within the context of the larger neighborhood.
“The proposal for the office tower would increase the traditionally acceptable height from 150 feet to well over 200 feet, right at the edge of the street,” said Representative Walz.
“All of the other taller buildings at the Prudential Center are set back from the street and here Boston Properties wants to add a building with significant height basically right at the sidewalk.”
Walz said that until she hears some justification for the increased height she doesn’t understand why it would be needed and noted that Boston Properties has already been approved for an 11-story office tower on the site, which would not go above the traditional 150 feet of allowable height.
“I have to understand more about the commercial real estate market, and they need to make their case to PruPAC in order for that proposal to go forward,” she added.
However, Meg Mainzer Cohen, a PruPAC member and the executive director of the Back Bay Business Association, said that the additional height requested for the Boylston building is understandable, given the vagaries of the commercial office market.
“We feel like the entire project would be an enhancement to the community,” said Cohen. “Any initiative proposal will go through various iterations, but so far we feel pretty positively about both towers.”
Cohen explained that Boston Properties has come back and asked for more height in the office tower to accommodate potential tenants who have indicated that they are looking for a ‘signature’ building, and “and to provide that you need more height.”
As for Exeter Street, Cohen said she likes the idea of “activating” Exeter Street with new residential units, especially since the proposal includes retail space on the first floor of the building.
“I also think that Boston Properties has done a very good job of demonstrating to us how the buildings will work on the street,” added Cohen.
But Walz said that height is still a concern for the office tower, particularly in light of the continued construction of the 13-story Mandarin Oriental Boston Hotel adjacent to Lord and Taylor on Boylston Street and the way that project is being received in the community.
“As for Exeter Street, I’m delighted to see more housing being proposed in that area, but I think the design of the building should be more significant,” said Walz. “I really think the developer is missing an opportunity to do something interesting and creative on that site.”
And she added that she also has similar concerns with putting such a large residential building on Exeter Street right across from the BPL.
“We just have to work on the design of the building and have a hard conversation about what the appropriate height is in that neighborhood,” said Walz. “The Exeter Street building is proposed to be 340 feet and the office tower would be 265 feet. They are both significantly taller than other buildings we typically find right in the neighborhood. If we use the Mandarin Oriental hotel as a benchmark, many people in the neighborhood are startled by how big that building feels right at the street and both of these buildings are taller than that is.”
Friday, September 21, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Reporter Barred From Prudential Project Advisory Meeting
Banker and Tradesman
Shut out.
A reporter from a neighborhood newspaper was barred from a city advisory panel meeting last week in an apparent violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law.
Ted Siefer, who writes for The Boston Courant, a weekly newspaper distributed to 35,000 households in the downtown neighborhoods, was ejected from a meeting of the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) on Wednesday.
The 41-member group was established by former Mayor Raymond Flynn in the 1980s to advise City Hall on development projects near Boston’s Prudential Center. Flynn told Banker & Tradesman that he was disappointed that the press and the public were banned from the meeting.
"It was never my intention to keep the public or the press from attending any meetings," he said. "The reason we appointed these groups was to open up the windows and make the process wide open."
On Wednesday afternoon, Elliott Laffer, PruPAC’s vice chairman, assured Banker & Tradesman that reporters would be allowed to cover the session as long as questions were reserved until after the meeting. He also asked that members not be quoted. The meeting was called to hear a presentation by Boston Properties on a pair of buildings the company plans to construct at the Prudential Center.
On Thursday, Laffer declined to say who raised the objection to the public being present. He also refused to say how he voted on that presence and said only that the vote was overwhelmingly against having the public in the room.
Siefer said Richard Kiley, a representative of the Fenway Civic Association on PruPAC, raised the objection to the media’s presence and made a motion to evict him. Kiley is a schoolteacher who no longer lives in the Fenway area. He could not be reached for comment.
William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association, said he did not support the move to keep the press out. "I have never run a meeting that kept the press out," he said.
‘A Different View’
Siefer said at least four members voted to keep the press in the room, including state Rep. Martha M. Walz; Marc Lederman, who represented the Fenway Community Development Corp.; Walter Salvi from NSTAR; and Meg Mainzer Cohen of the Back Bay Association.
Laffer defended the vote to keep the meeting private. "Over its 20-year history, PruPAC had not been public and not had allowed reporters in the room," he said. "The downside to having reporters in the room is that it inhibits discussion. Frankly, we worry about saying something that might be perceived as stupid."
Betsy Johnson, the PruPAC chairman, also defended the panel’s vote to keep the public and the press out. She said even during the Flynn administration, the "working sessions" were private.
"The private sessions were the policy when Flynn was mayor and no one from the Boston Redevelopment Authority or the administration spoke up at that time. It’s not like we’ve been open for 15 years and now this meeting was closed," she said. "We are very proud of our accomplishments, but our work has been compromised by untimely references and quotes in the press. We’ve had a process that is not broke, and why change it at this point?"
Siefer said John O’Brien, the BRA’s project manager who attended the meeting, advised PruPAC that an understanding had been reached with the Courant and other papers that such meetings are open, but the ground rules are that no one should be quoted during the session.
"He also said these meetings are not covered by the Open Meeting Law," Siefer said. "But I said the [district attorney] has a different view of that."
Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said while his office has not ruled on PruPAC meetings, he noted that the office previously has offered on an opinion on a case that involved the Harvard Allston Task Force. In that case, the public was barred from a session.
In a letter to the BRA in June, Conley wrote, "Where members of a governmental body meet to discuss public business in private … this action constitutes a meeting under the Open Meeting Law."
In a prepared statement, the BRA said, "Because the BRA encourages groups like PruPAC to allow members of the public to observe their meetings that address development proposals, we are disappointed with PruPAC’s recent actions. As part of the BRA’s review process, there will be an opportunity for all members of the public to participate in the discussion about this project."
David Jacobs, the Courant publisher, said he plans to contact the Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office and Conley’s office to advise them that PruPAC is violating the state’s Open Meeting Law.
"I have declared jihad on these closed meetings," Jacobs said. "I understand the need for working group meetings, but we’re talking about $100 million projects that impact all of us and the decision-making leading up to proposals are vital because projects have a way of building momentum and by the time the public hears about them they have a life of their own."
Siefer noted that as he was being tossed out of the meeting, he was offered a treat.
"‘Take a brownie on the way out,’ someone said to me," he said. "I declined."
Shut out.
A reporter from a neighborhood newspaper was barred from a city advisory panel meeting last week in an apparent violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law.
Ted Siefer, who writes for The Boston Courant, a weekly newspaper distributed to 35,000 households in the downtown neighborhoods, was ejected from a meeting of the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) on Wednesday.
The 41-member group was established by former Mayor Raymond Flynn in the 1980s to advise City Hall on development projects near Boston’s Prudential Center. Flynn told Banker & Tradesman that he was disappointed that the press and the public were banned from the meeting.
"It was never my intention to keep the public or the press from attending any meetings," he said. "The reason we appointed these groups was to open up the windows and make the process wide open."
On Wednesday afternoon, Elliott Laffer, PruPAC’s vice chairman, assured Banker & Tradesman that reporters would be allowed to cover the session as long as questions were reserved until after the meeting. He also asked that members not be quoted. The meeting was called to hear a presentation by Boston Properties on a pair of buildings the company plans to construct at the Prudential Center.
On Thursday, Laffer declined to say who raised the objection to the public being present. He also refused to say how he voted on that presence and said only that the vote was overwhelmingly against having the public in the room.
Siefer said Richard Kiley, a representative of the Fenway Civic Association on PruPAC, raised the objection to the media’s presence and made a motion to evict him. Kiley is a schoolteacher who no longer lives in the Fenway area. He could not be reached for comment.
William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association, said he did not support the move to keep the press out. "I have never run a meeting that kept the press out," he said.
‘A Different View’
Siefer said at least four members voted to keep the press in the room, including state Rep. Martha M. Walz; Marc Lederman, who represented the Fenway Community Development Corp.; Walter Salvi from NSTAR; and Meg Mainzer Cohen of the Back Bay Association.
Laffer defended the vote to keep the meeting private. "Over its 20-year history, PruPAC had not been public and not had allowed reporters in the room," he said. "The downside to having reporters in the room is that it inhibits discussion. Frankly, we worry about saying something that might be perceived as stupid."
Betsy Johnson, the PruPAC chairman, also defended the panel’s vote to keep the public and the press out. She said even during the Flynn administration, the "working sessions" were private.
"The private sessions were the policy when Flynn was mayor and no one from the Boston Redevelopment Authority or the administration spoke up at that time. It’s not like we’ve been open for 15 years and now this meeting was closed," she said. "We are very proud of our accomplishments, but our work has been compromised by untimely references and quotes in the press. We’ve had a process that is not broke, and why change it at this point?"
Siefer said John O’Brien, the BRA’s project manager who attended the meeting, advised PruPAC that an understanding had been reached with the Courant and other papers that such meetings are open, but the ground rules are that no one should be quoted during the session.
"He also said these meetings are not covered by the Open Meeting Law," Siefer said. "But I said the [district attorney] has a different view of that."
Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, said while his office has not ruled on PruPAC meetings, he noted that the office previously has offered on an opinion on a case that involved the Harvard Allston Task Force. In that case, the public was barred from a session.
In a letter to the BRA in June, Conley wrote, "Where members of a governmental body meet to discuss public business in private … this action constitutes a meeting under the Open Meeting Law."
In a prepared statement, the BRA said, "Because the BRA encourages groups like PruPAC to allow members of the public to observe their meetings that address development proposals, we are disappointed with PruPAC’s recent actions. As part of the BRA’s review process, there will be an opportunity for all members of the public to participate in the discussion about this project."
David Jacobs, the Courant publisher, said he plans to contact the Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office and Conley’s office to advise them that PruPAC is violating the state’s Open Meeting Law.
"I have declared jihad on these closed meetings," Jacobs said. "I understand the need for working group meetings, but we’re talking about $100 million projects that impact all of us and the decision-making leading up to proposals are vital because projects have a way of building momentum and by the time the public hears about them they have a life of their own."
Siefer noted that as he was being tossed out of the meeting, he was offered a treat.
"‘Take a brownie on the way out,’ someone said to me," he said. "I declined."
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Prudential Planning Group Bans Public
Boston Courant
A city-appointed advisory group voted to bar the press and public from a meeting last week on expansion plans at the Prudential Center, contrary to the advice of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).
Prior to the meeting, representatives of the Prudential Project Advisory committee (PruPAC) indicated that they would relent on a long-standing policy, going back to its formation 20 years ago, of closing their meetings to the public.
Instead, at a conference room at 111 Huntington Avenue containing a two-foot high model of the Prudential Center, the group voted by a roughly 2-to-1 margin to expel this reporter.
In addition to executives from Boston Properties, the Pru’s owner, and Avalon Bay communities, its partner in the proposed expansion, the meeting was attended by BRA senior project manager John O’Brien and state Reps. Byron Rushing and Marty Walz.
Before the vote, O’Brien told the group that the agency considered the evening’s presentation a “working meeting,” which the press could observe so long as comments were kept off the record. The BRA has imposed the same ground rules for advisory committee meetings on other projects, such as Columbus Center. At the same time, O’Brien said the BRA did not believe that the sessions were subject to the state’s Open Meeting Law.
PruPAC chair Betsy Johnson said before the meeting that the BRA had advised the group in recent discussions to allow the press. She noted, however, that many members of the group would be reluctant to change the policy.
“We try to be a careful, deliberative body,” said Johnson, who is a member of the Claremont Neighborhood Association. “We want to give members a chance to go back to their organizations and for subcommittees to go over details before weighing in on a project one way or another. Having the press there compromises that.”
BRA spokesperson Lucy Warsh said prior to the meeting that the agency does not “encourage” PruPAC to keep members of the public out. “They’re an advisory committee to the BRA. That’s their capacity,” she said.
But, she added, “We don’t feel we can impose rules on PruPAC.”
The BRA and Elliott Laffer, the vice chair of PruPAC, disclosed the time and location of the meeting following several queries from The Boston Courant and Banker & Tradesman.
Following the meeting, the BRA issued this statement: “Because the BRA encourages groups like PruPAC to allow members of the public to observe their meetings that address development proposals, we are disappointed with PruPAC’s recent actions. As part of the BRA’s review process, there will be an opportunity for all members of the public to participate in the discussion about this project.”
PruPAC, formed in 1986, today has more than 40 members, including representatives of seven neighborhood groups, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Boston Society of Architects, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority and the building trades. In addition to state Reps. Walz and Rushing, the group also includes City Councilor Michael Ross.
Walz said after the meeting that she did not support the decision to exclude the press. “PruPAC has proven itself over many years to be reasonable and accountable to the organizations they represent, but I get uncomfortable whenever closed meetings are held,” she said. “Other review committees may not do as good a job, which is why public participation has become so important.”
In June, Suffolk County District Attorney (DA) Daniel Conley warned the BRA that city-appointed advisory committees were subject to the Open Meeting Law, which requires that meetings be advertised 48 hours in advance and minutes be disclosed.
The DA’s letter came in response to complaints that members of the Boston College and Harvard task forces held closed meetings with BRA and college officials concerning the schools’ expansion plans.
The BRA has continued to maintain that the Open Meeting Law does not apply to citizen advisory committees formed as part of the Article 80 public review process. While wielding no binding authority, advisory groups often play a key role in negotiating the mitigation measures and community benefits tied to large development projects.
Boston Properties submitted its plans to the BRA for a new office building and residential tower at the Prudential Center on August 31, triggering the public review period for the proposal. The plans, first reported in The Boston Courant last month, call for a 19-story office building on Boylston Street, directly in front of the Pru tower, and a 30-story residential tower off Exeter Street.
The BRA has scheduled a public meeting at the Boston Public Library for Wednesday, October 3 at 6 p.m. on the proposed expansion.
A city-appointed advisory group voted to bar the press and public from a meeting last week on expansion plans at the Prudential Center, contrary to the advice of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).
Prior to the meeting, representatives of the Prudential Project Advisory committee (PruPAC) indicated that they would relent on a long-standing policy, going back to its formation 20 years ago, of closing their meetings to the public.
Instead, at a conference room at 111 Huntington Avenue containing a two-foot high model of the Prudential Center, the group voted by a roughly 2-to-1 margin to expel this reporter.
In addition to executives from Boston Properties, the Pru’s owner, and Avalon Bay communities, its partner in the proposed expansion, the meeting was attended by BRA senior project manager John O’Brien and state Reps. Byron Rushing and Marty Walz.
Before the vote, O’Brien told the group that the agency considered the evening’s presentation a “working meeting,” which the press could observe so long as comments were kept off the record. The BRA has imposed the same ground rules for advisory committee meetings on other projects, such as Columbus Center. At the same time, O’Brien said the BRA did not believe that the sessions were subject to the state’s Open Meeting Law.
PruPAC chair Betsy Johnson said before the meeting that the BRA had advised the group in recent discussions to allow the press. She noted, however, that many members of the group would be reluctant to change the policy.
“We try to be a careful, deliberative body,” said Johnson, who is a member of the Claremont Neighborhood Association. “We want to give members a chance to go back to their organizations and for subcommittees to go over details before weighing in on a project one way or another. Having the press there compromises that.”
BRA spokesperson Lucy Warsh said prior to the meeting that the agency does not “encourage” PruPAC to keep members of the public out. “They’re an advisory committee to the BRA. That’s their capacity,” she said.
But, she added, “We don’t feel we can impose rules on PruPAC.”
The BRA and Elliott Laffer, the vice chair of PruPAC, disclosed the time and location of the meeting following several queries from The Boston Courant and Banker & Tradesman.
Following the meeting, the BRA issued this statement: “Because the BRA encourages groups like PruPAC to allow members of the public to observe their meetings that address development proposals, we are disappointed with PruPAC’s recent actions. As part of the BRA’s review process, there will be an opportunity for all members of the public to participate in the discussion about this project.”
PruPAC, formed in 1986, today has more than 40 members, including representatives of seven neighborhood groups, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Boston Society of Architects, the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority and the building trades. In addition to state Reps. Walz and Rushing, the group also includes City Councilor Michael Ross.
Walz said after the meeting that she did not support the decision to exclude the press. “PruPAC has proven itself over many years to be reasonable and accountable to the organizations they represent, but I get uncomfortable whenever closed meetings are held,” she said. “Other review committees may not do as good a job, which is why public participation has become so important.”
In June, Suffolk County District Attorney (DA) Daniel Conley warned the BRA that city-appointed advisory committees were subject to the Open Meeting Law, which requires that meetings be advertised 48 hours in advance and minutes be disclosed.
The DA’s letter came in response to complaints that members of the Boston College and Harvard task forces held closed meetings with BRA and college officials concerning the schools’ expansion plans.
The BRA has continued to maintain that the Open Meeting Law does not apply to citizen advisory committees formed as part of the Article 80 public review process. While wielding no binding authority, advisory groups often play a key role in negotiating the mitigation measures and community benefits tied to large development projects.
Boston Properties submitted its plans to the BRA for a new office building and residential tower at the Prudential Center on August 31, triggering the public review period for the proposal. The plans, first reported in The Boston Courant last month, call for a 19-story office building on Boylston Street, directly in front of the Pru tower, and a 30-story residential tower off Exeter Street.
The BRA has scheduled a public meeting at the Boston Public Library for Wednesday, October 3 at 6 p.m. on the proposed expansion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)