Those leaving Boston, or who have left Boston. Do You Have any Regrets? Where did you move? (Newton: condo, crime rate)

[lrfox]

Some great posts here.

I don't have much to add to what missionhill and holden have said. The one thing I will add about the dreaded Back Bay Association is that they're terribly anti-development (essentially anti-progress). This is the group who is ferociously objecting to an 18 story building at the Prudential Plaza because it will "cast shadows and bring too much traffic" to their neighborhood. Keep in mind, this building is slated to go in the plaza that sits directly in front of a 750ft. 52 story building (Under which is the largest underground parking lot in the city where most traffic enters from the Huntington Ave side)... the shadows are there. However, they have NO opposition to Druker's demolition of the Shreve Crump and Low building to be replaced with a generic glass box because it's a block out of their reach.

They drive me nuts. It's a backwards mindset for people who live in an urban area (though it's very common in NYC and other Northeastern cities). They're so anty progress and so NIMBY that I'm suprised anything gets done in the Back Bay.

anyway, end rant.

jonjj, I also like Baltimore a lot. It is a LOT like Boston's ugly sister, but it's got character and affordability.

[holden125]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Some great posts here.

I don't have much to add to what missionhill and holden have said. The one thing I will add about the dreaded Back Bay Association is that they're terribly anti-development (essentially anti-progress). This is the group who is ferociously objecting to an 18 story building at the Prudential Plaza because it will "cast shadows and bring too much traffic" to their neighborhood. Keep in mind, this building is slated to go in the plaza that sits directly in front of a 750ft. 52 story building... the shadows are there. However, they have NO opposition to Druker's demolition of the Shreve Crump and Low building to be replaced with a generic glass box because it's a block out of their reach.

They drive me nuts. It's a backwards mindset for people who live in an urban area (though it's very common in NYC and other Northeastern cities). They're so anty progress and so NIMBY that I'm suprised anything gets done in the Back Bay.

anyway, end rant.

jonjj, I also like Baltimore a lot. It is a LOT like Boston's ugly sister, but it's got character and affordability.

Not sure I like Baltimore "a lot" but I also appreciate its charm. Don't think I'd really like to live there. I've been a city person my whole life but I do feel unsafe walking in many parts of Charm City. Might be because I don't know it well enough to know what's up, though I know it to some degree.

LR, I don't think I'm with you on the Pru project. You could argue (and I will argue) that Boston, and the northeast in general, has remained so desirable because of careful review of all projects and the need to satisfy the neighbors. You imply that it's out of character for northeastern cities to resist big projects, but I'd suggest that northeastern cities (and particularly Boston) are the most likely to do it and are better off for it. I certainly prefer that level of scrutiny to the indiscriminate dumping of buildings that goes on in the Sun Belt, and I don't know how you maintain a dense but attractive and livable urban environment without it.

I generally don't like the BBA all that much for all their whining about bars when they choose to live in the middle of the city. The bars are all on Boylston and Newbury anyway, not on Comm Av or Marlborough. But the Back Bay has, since the Pru, had to walk a tightrope between the high-rises south of Boylston and preserving the character of the pre-existing neighborhood. If you look at the site on the google maps street view, you'll see that Boylston St is bathed in sunlight and the sun makes a huge glare next to the existing Pru tower. Consider that sunlight gone when this building goes up. I don't want Boston to become Manhattan, and see no need for this building when there's such a high commercial vacancy rate downtown.

Sometimes I think people in the planning field equate development projects with progress more readily than I do. Back in the 50's the West End was demolished because of prevailing attitudes about progress in urban development, and I don't think we're better for it. Today we've all read our Jane Jacobs and won't do that again anytime soon, but I don't think it's backwards to preserve Boston's character, nor do I think this particular building marks any kind of progress I'd like to be affiliated with. To me it's on a par with the equally bad plan to replace the Shreve Crump Low building, and the disparity of response from the BBA doesn't change that.

[Bostonian08]

Originally Posted by holden125

LR, I don't think I'm with you on the Pru project. You could argue (and I will argue) that Boston, and the northeast in general, has remained so desirable because of careful review of all projects and the need to satisfy the neighbors. You imply that it's out of character for northeastern cities to resist big projects, but I'd suggest that northeastern cities (and particularly Boston) are the most likely to do it and are better off for it. I certainly prefer that level of scrutiny to the indiscriminate dumping of buildings that goes on in the Sun Belt, and I don't know how you maintain a dense but attractive and livable urban environment without it.

Right! Preservation is a hugely important issue and except for Europe, no one does it better than Boston. Without it you get big cheap ugly boxes and a quick fat profit for a few. OTOH, it does slow down a lot of stuff that should just be taken care of - like South Bay and the Seaport district - two abominations left to fester for centuries. The other thing that could have been done by now is the air rights over the pike. The whole city could have been stitched back together if they'd just settle for something not completely gross. I don't think that's unreasonable given the significant added developer expenses for building over a highway.

I think the biggest boo-boo lately has been the Mandarin. The original design drawing I saw made me drool and say hell yeah w/o a second thought. But the building they put up is not nearly as nice as the drawing they submitted and far worse they built it out too close to the sidewalk so now when you look down bolyston street, it blocks the view which you used to be able to see all the way to the Liberty Tree building and makes Boylston look narrower and less grand. They need to move that building back about ten feet and everything will be fine, but alas I doubt that will happen. This BTW is the second time In BOS recently where the originally design presented did not match the final result. The first was the Commonwealth Hotel in Kenmore. The original design looked like Westminster Abbey while the result looked like a cheap Disney mock up. Seems like they have a new bait and switch game in BOS design. Hopefully the city will catch on before the F up anything else.

Originally Posted by holden125

I generally don't like the BBA all that much for all their whining about bars when they choose to live in the middle of the city.

It's actually NABB - Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay. And really you gotta like 'em just because upper class snobby blue bloods are a culture all their own that IFNOR adds an interesting dynamic to city life that is not found everywhere.

Originally Posted by holden125

Sometimes I think people in the planning field equate development projects with progress more readily than I do. Back in the 50's the West End was demolished because of prevailing attitudes about progress in urban development, and I don't think we're better for it. Today we've all read our Jane Jacobs and won't do that again anytime soon, but I don't think it's backwards to preserve Boston's character, nor do I think this particular building marks any kind of progress I'd like to be affiliated with. To me it's on a par with the equally bad plan to replace the Shreve Crump Low building, and the disparity of response from the BBA doesn't change that.

A lot of people should be in jail for what happened to the West End. That and busing were certainly the crimes of the century in BOS. The SCL building is kinda a sad story. It's not the most fabulous building but from the designs I've seen what's replacing it sure is a weak substitute. It's kinda hard to imagine why the city is letting this go.

[Lcstyle]

Originally Posted by miamidad

i could have moved anywhere in the country and i chose boston--i loved boston but i dont feel it loved me back. Its been a very hard winter. Too many really rude people (lots of friendly people as well but somehow the rude ones are the ones that stick in my head) whenever i drove i was petrified i would hit someone because pedestrians and bikers would just go in front of my moving car. Crazy expensive! once we parked for 90 minutes downtown and the garage tix was $40!!! I will miss boston very much but i think it is too hard for us--

Hey, don't think your the only one "Miami Dad", I moved to Boston a year and a half ago from Miami. I just recently went down to Miami to visit family, this after reading a lot of opinions in response to my thread (run a search on this same forum "recently moved to bos from MIA).

First off this is a much more pedestrian oriented State. Pedestrians expect drivers to yield because a lot more people up here get around by walking and using public transportation.

Your experience paying $40 for parking is because you don't know which areas to park in, as well as not knowing that a lot of people who live in the city choose to go without owning a car, since its just more convenient to walk everywhere. People in Florida would never dream of this because it is SO HOT, that one would never think to walk to work from home even if you lived nearby and even if Miami had a subway because you'd be drenched in sweat by the time you got there, looking like you just ran a marathon.

What I found during my recent trip: is that I missed the excitement, everything in Mass as pointed out by several people is further away, further away in terms of houses not being right on top of one another, more privacy, people tend to respect each others personal boundaries more. That's one thing about Latin culture: it's like personal boundaries don't exist.

The city here in Boston is a little different, there's more life and flavor to it. But you just wont find the same kind of insanity that you do in Miami 24 x 7. You also won't find the 24x7 traffic, like you do in Miami no matter where you go or what time it is.

People say drivers in Mass are "m*******s" but in Miami Road Rage is more common place than even I would like to admit. I've gotten used to actually driving like a normal, sane person up here. I was reminded of this during the very short 48 hour period I was down there recently, when a car in my lane up ahead was broken down and I literally had to fight to get out into another lane, because people saw my blinker on and decided that this meant that they should accelerate so that I couldn't get in front of them.

I forgot that in Miami people only respond to rude aggression, instead of logic and humility.

I spent more time sitting in traffic in 1 day in Miami than I have in Mass probably in a year. It's really sad and its only going to get worse with all of the over development and overcrowding. You can't compare Boston's downtown with Miami's. The people are completely different and 100% nicer.

Holden125 said in another thread:

It may be clear that I don't share Adambos's rosy view of life in NYC. It may just be burnout, but I've had enough sophistication (which I'm beginning to translate as condescending phoniness and the flaunting of material opulence), and I couldn't care less about nightlife. I enjoy having a couple of beers but I'm not into loud, overpriced, and crowded and at this point in my life I don't really want to stay out past 2 anyway.

The same is true of Miami. The attitude of the "nouveau riche" of newly minted wealthy young (whom are BTW just newly minted mortgage fraudsters who got lucky with their timing and were able to take advantage of a Bubble economy using cheater loans) really really stinks of condescending phoniness and conspicuous consumption.

It wasn't uncommon for me to see people who in 2004 couldn't buy a house buy a $100,000 Mercedes Benz Cash in 2006, those Mercedes Benz dealers must also give away a bag of smug, because these same people also tended to arrive in their new car with a condescending attitude to boot.

I think the younger crowd especially guys tend to be much less aggressive and confrontational here. There's not that same drive for younger people here to constantly find and attract mates with the fury that people do out in Miami. There's not this constant pressure to feel like your a part of the "in crowd", or otherwise having to feel like your a loser. And believe me, I'm not mad at Miami, and sure some of this *is* peppered with my own personal experiences, but after hearing story after story you start to get the impression that what you feel is also distinctly what other people also feel. If you haven't lived anywhere else, then like myself you really have no point of reference to compare.

Miami and Boston have two distinct feels. I still haven't completely found my niche here in Boston, and I'm not sure I ever will. But one thing is for sure: the traffic is a heck of a lot better. I have my own place, which is quiet. There are no "thugs" walking around everywhere like in Miami. I don't worry about my car and whether its going to get broken into anymore. Of course I live in Metrowest, by Natick, and I've been out by Brockton and seen some really shady areas near a friends house, with some of the same type of undesirables as in Miami, but otherwise nowhere near the same levels.

I agree now with other posters who've commented that: "Miami is really just the capitol of South America."

Some of the more negative aspects I think can be attributed to the Latin culture, some of it is the "poor person" mentality of people who want to outdo each other materially, and I think part of is also the constant heat and traffic in Miami that just drives people nuts.

Combine that with an extremely high unemployment rate, crashing real estate prices, No#1 or #2 in Fraud and Scams in the nation, and you've got yourself a place where everyone is just struggling to get by, but they're all driving BMW's making 1000 dollar car payments that amount to more than 50% of their monthly income.

[clevedark]

Being the international capital of Latin America isn't such a bad thing!

[Lcstyle]

Originally Posted by clevedark

Being the international capital of Latin America isn't such a bad thing!

Hahaha, no your right, re-reading my own post I thought I came off as being bitter towards Miami, though I'm really not.

The measure being "Given a choice, would I move back?"

I don't think my answer to that is clear anymore. When I first got here it would have decidedly been yes.

Everyone's personal experience is different too, although, sitting in traffic for two hours every day of your life with the absolutely worst, most aggressive drivers does seem to take its toll.

I've browsed through the LA Forums and found out that there is a place that is worse than Miami.

[adambos]

I wanted to clarify some points that were brought up in regards to my "suburban interdenpendancy" comment and why this phenonmenon didnt agree with me.

First of all, when I lived in Boston I lived in the back bay, didnt own a car, worked in the financial district and took the T to get around. I utilized zipcar when I needed to leave the city which for me occured about once a month, sometimes twice.

When Boston gets crowded, you the resident are the minority. The streets are filled with meandering "bostonians" from marshfield, danvers or a myriad of other towns that aren't really Boston. For me this wasnt a symantics issue, it was in direct corelation to the fact that someone living in, say danvers, simply DID NOT live my lifestyle. They COULDNT understand lugging laundry down newbury st, or that I actually lived on the block they were getting rowdy on.

In Boston there is a tremendous amount of pressure to settle down . You dont live my lifestyle at 30. You move to Newton, maybe Natick or Framingham, buy a house and call it a day. Thats good stuff. But It's not for me. I crave vibrancy. Crave it. I got married in '07 and moved to New York. Not Newton. The very fact that people site NY on this forum as a "pain" because it takes so long to commute actually illustrates my point about Boston. It's a suburb town. People want their yards, their 1200 sf homes and their two cars. I have a 20 min commute in manhattan. I live in the upper east side, work in midtown. I love my long glorious walks home. NY is an inexhaustible space. I love that.

In Boston, I was a minority opinion in my own city. The city of Boston has a population of about 500,000, while the Boston Metro is about 4 mil. That means most people who associate themselves as Bostonians, don't live an urban lifestyle, have different priorities, different agendas, and different experiences than someone ACTUALLY living in Boston proper. There isn't anything wrong with this, but it most certainly creates an interesting dynamic.

I've lived all over. Atlanta, LA, San Francisco, Phoenix. I now live in New York City. I'm originally a Bostonian. I was raised there.

I now live a similar lifestyle in New York City. I still do not own a car. I take the subway to work in midtown. But now, I'm the majority.

Boston is Boston. That's fine. It just is no longer my kinda town.

ps. very boston comment to see sophistication and translate "phony/condescending." Not at all. Not at all.

[MAtoNC!]

No regrets. I moved to Cary, NC two years ago. I left because of the winters and overpriced, outdated housing. The only things I miss are in the tourist sense like the North End. For my daily life I really don't miss it. But I have fond memories of MA beaches and working in downtown Boston.

[holden125]

Originally Posted by adambos

I wanted to clarify some points that were brought up in regards to my "suburban interdenpendancy" comment and why this phenonmenon didnt agree with me.

First of all, when I lived in Boston I lived in the back bay, didnt own a car, worked in the financial district and took the T to get around. I utilized zipcar when I needed to leave the city which for me occured about once a month, sometimes twice.

When Boston gets crowded, you the resident are the minority. The streets are filled with meandering "bostonians" from marshfield, danvers or a myriad of other towns that aren't really Boston. For me this wasnt a symantics issue, it was in direct corelation to the fact that someone living in, say danvers, simply DID NOT live my lifestyle. They COULDNT understand lugging laundry down newbury st, or that I actually lived on the block they were getting rowdy on.

In Boston there is a tremendous amount of pressure to settle down . You dont live my lifestyle at 30. You move to Newton, maybe Natick or Framingham, buy a house and call it a day. Thats good stuff. But It's not for me. I crave vibrancy. Crave it. I got married in '07 and moved to New York. Not Newton. The very fact that people site NY on this forum as a "pain" because it takes so long to commute actually illustrates my point about Boston. It's a suburb town. People want their yards, their 1200 sf homes and their two cars. I have a 20 min commute in manhattan. I live in the upper east side, work in midtown. I love my long glorious walks home. NY is an inexhaustible space. I love that.

In Boston, I was a minority opinion in my own city. The city of Boston has a population of about 500,000, while the Boston Metro is about 4 mil. That means most people who associate themselves as Bostonians, don't live an urban lifestyle, have different priorities, different agendas, and different experiences than someone ACTUALLY living in Boston proper. There isn't anything wrong with this, but it most certainly creates an interesting dynamic.

I've lived all over. Atlanta, LA, San Francisco, Phoenix. I now live in New York City. I'm originally a Bostonian. I was raised there.

I now live a similar lifestyle in New York City. I still do not own a car. I take the subway to work in midtown. But now, I'm the majority.

Boston is Boston. That's fine. It just is no longer my kinda town.

I do hear you, but I think that the same suburban or tourist invasion issue exists in NYC. Of course, NYC has more urban areas like the UES where you can live an urban lifestyle and not be surrounded by day-trippers.

I certainly don't necessarily agree with the characterization of Boston as a "suburb town" because people from Boston, myself included, consider NYC commuting a pain. I have always been a city person. Since turning 18, I haven't had a yard of any kind. The paved-over space behind the 2-family house I spend three days a week in with my girlfriend is the closest I've come. And she already lived in that apartment out in Belmont when we met, I didn't pick it. I got my first car in December, at 33, because I have to shuttle back and forth every week. So I'm really not a suburban person.

Your NYC experience is not attainable for everyone. You are fortunate enough to be able to afford to live on the UES. For those that aren't, NYC is a pain. I was a college student in NYC. My father lost his job while I was in college and I had little choice but to move in with relatives on the far side of Brooklyn. It was far from suburban where I lived (in fact, more urban than most of the city of Boston), but an hour by subway. Two hours after 10 PM. That doesn't help your social life. When you have to spend two plus hours on the train or shell out 40 bucks you don't have for a cab, you tend not to go out much. Later, when I worked for social service agencies in NYC, I commuted from there or from other parts of Brooklyn, which were also a pain to get home to. In those days paying Manhattan rent really wasn't much of an option for me. Now I have a nice place, not in Manhattan (by choice) but right across from it. My commute in NYC is a breeze, but I still like to escape from the city on occasion and the constant traffic jams, 3 hours to get out of the city limits on a summer Friday night, are not much fun.

Those who have children, and who can't afford sufficient space in a vibrant Manhattan neighborhood to house them (a 2-BR in Manhattan, with maintenance, is still much more expensive than many 4-BR houses in Newton), will be facing an ardous commute. And there's the issue of schools. My grandmother taught in the NYC public schools and I started my schooling in the NYC system, before we moved back to Mass., where my dad's family was from. The system is byzantine and it's not easy to get your kids in a decent school. Private school's cost is prohibitive for many. Thus a lot of people with kids, who love city life, wind up in the suburbs. Again, arduous commute.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by holden125

Not sure I like Baltimore "a lot" but I also appreciate its charm. Don't think I'd really like to live there. I've been a city person my whole life but I do feel unsafe walking in many parts of Charm City. Might be because I don't know it well enough to know what's up, though I know it to some degree.

LR, I don't think I'm with you on the Pru project. You could argue (and I will argue) that Boston, and the northeast in general, has remained so desirable because of careful review of all projects and the need to satisfy the neighbors. You imply that it's out of character for northeastern cities to resist big projects, but I'd suggest that northeastern cities (and particularly Boston) are the most likely to do it and are better off for it. I certainly prefer that level of scrutiny to the indiscriminate dumping of buildings that goes on in the Sun Belt, and I don't know how you maintain a dense but attractive and livable urban environment without it.

I generally don't like the BBA all that much for all their whining about bars when they choose to live in the middle of the city. The bars are all on Boylston and Newbury anyway, not on Comm Av or Marlborough. But the Back Bay has, since the Pru, had to walk a tightrope between the high-rises south of Boylston and preserving the character of the pre-existing neighborhood. If you look at the site on the google maps street view, you'll see that Boylston St is bathed in sunlight and the sun makes a huge glare next to the existing Pru tower. Consider that sunlight gone when this building goes up. I don't want Boston to become Manhattan, and see no need for this building when there's such a high commercial vacancy rate downtown.

Sometimes I think people in the planning field equate development projects with progress more readily than I do. Back in the 50's the West End was demolished because of prevailing attitudes about progress in urban development, and I don't think we're better for it. Today we've all read our Jane Jacobs and won't do that again anytime soon, but I don't think it's backwards to preserve Boston's character, nor do I think this particular building marks any kind of progress I'd like to be affiliated with. To me it's on a par with the equally bad plan to replace the Shreve Crump Low building, and the disparity of response from the BBA doesn't change that.

I can't believe I didn't check back and respond.

I don't think we're on very different pages. I fully agree that the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay mentality of preservation is part of what keeps Boston great. I think preserving structures is key. I'm actually a big fan of some of the "facadectomies" taking place in town (Russia Wharf, Filenes if it ever gets off the ground, etc) that allow for the existing external features of old buildings to enhance new buildings while remaining in place. I also think the work being done to preserve some of the most significant Boston neighborhoods is excellent. Boston has a charm that is unique and we can't lose it... I cringe every time I look at a picture of Dock Square, Scollay Square, or the West End before Urban Renewal.

I also didn't mean to imply that Northeastern cities are quick to approve development. I think the case is the opposite. I think the Northeast has the fiercest opponents of it and the best preservation. The NIMBY culture is more predominant in this part of the country and we're better for it for the most part (with the exception of promoting low-density sprawl, etc).

We all know the West End (Government Center, Bullfinch Triangle, etc) were disasters. That type of "progress" is dated and I hope we never see anything like it again. My problem with the NABB is that their rigid NIMBY stance is often a hinderance in progress. The Prudential example may not be the best example (though it's not a bad one) because it's really not all that important of a project (especially with the vacancies now), but it's not a terrible example either. The plaza in front of the Pru is really worthless. It's hardly a treasured open urban space. The outdoor food court is used in the summer (and will still be there after the new building is finished) and the plaza itself usually is sparsely used as there are far better open spaces nearby (Copley, Comm. Ave Mall). Building there would be a great addition to a street wall on Boylston that's slowly getting better (I don't think the Mandarin is wonderful either, but it's better than the driveway that was there before in that it provides an engaging street level for pedestrians and adds to the street wall). The Hynes could use some renovation, but that Pru Plaza is weak. Furthermore, the building is part of a master plan where that height (a mere 18 stories, by the way) had been approved since the 80s. It's a shame that now that the developer wants to build, the neighborhood association is fighting an agreement that's been in place for decades. While their stance may appear noble, it really is selfishly motivated (I've attended a few meetings on this and other projects). The studies show that shadows will only be an issue for about 15 minutes per day for about 3 months out of the year, yet that's enough for some residents to cry "foul!"

What's more is that a lot of the NIMBYism that these neighborhood associations (it's certainly not just Back Bay) display is part of the reason some of Boston's newer projects turn out so crappy. The Mandarin Oriental can be categorized in this group. The fierce opposition to many of these projects often leads to design modification. In Boston this usually means cutting down floors thus creating the stubby boxes and landscrapers that plague Boston (the same buildings that the same people who pushed for the redesign end up complaining about). What's tragic is that a gem like the SC&L building will be razed because Druker's proposal for the site is, well, a stubby, flavorless landscraper so there will be little opposition from neighbors because the proposal won't cast those skin-melting shadows that they fear so much (unrelated, but how is it that "shade" is good but "shadows" are bad?).

These neighborhood groups are counterproductive all too often. They are part of the reason the stunning tower proposed for Copley Place (which would have been 10% affordable housing) was shot down so quickly. These same neighborhood groups are in the midst of destroying an EXCELLENT proposal which would eliminate the Government Center Garage- that really acts as Boston's version of the Berlin Wall- and replace it with an iconic and urban development. Furthermore, the proposal will include a public school and a brand new police station. However, neighborhood groups fear that the building height is too tall and want it chopped down. It'll end up as another 500' box or not be built at all.

Boston residents seem to have a complete irrational fear of height in buildings. They cite the "Manhattanization" of Boston which is almost laughable. Boston won't ever be Manhattan. Even so, Manhattan is one of the most desirable urban places in the world. The South side of Boylston and the Financial District are perfect areas for high-rise development. Boston has historically had one of the lowest vacancy rates for class A office space in the country so demand is there (maybe not temporarily due to the economy though) otherwise people wouldn't want to build. Furthermore, high-rise residences (which most of the newest proposals include) could really help ease the demand for market rate housing close to downtown. Furthermore, continually shooting down proposals and making it difficult for developers to build is a bad way to keep business in Boston. We already have a hard enough time competing with the Sunbelt (not to mention our own suburbs), and rejecting proposal after proposal is incredibly discouraging for those who want to consider locating in Boston. Why is a developer going to try to go through the lengthy process to build in Boston when he can do it in 1/3 the time in Atlanta? The mayor can take some of the blame for touting favorite developers (like the bum, Druker) and spurning others (like Chioforo who wants to build over the cruddy garage near the Aquarium but the mayor opposes it due to a personal feud), but neighborhood groups like the NABB have been a thorn in the side of progress for a LONG time. Look at Columbus Center. If the funding comes in, the plan is to build decks over the Pike which will reconnect that area of the South End with the Back Bay while adding housing and covering up a scar cutting through the city. Some residents fear that the traffic produced by new residents will detract from their nieghborhood!

I am all for Preservation and neighborhoods like the Back Bay, South End, Beacon Hill, North End, etc. should be spared waves of development as they are gems and not many cities in this country have the historic neighborhoods and architecture Boston does. However, a lot of this opposition has really cost the city. Developers have to fight the FAA in the financial district and seaport area and neighborhoods elsewhere in the city. If Boston can't build tall (or even semi-tall) in the major commercial districts, how else is it supposed to compete with cities that are willing to add the space businesses want? Boston wants to preserve it's neighborhoods (and it should!), but it needs alternative places to build and neighborhood opposition, the FAA, and the mayor really put a limit on what goes in.

The West End was a disaster, but building tall in the right locations (like where people have built tall before) isn't bad for the city. In fact, it's good. NABB and others continue to fight height not out of preservation (really, what does building semi-tall... 18 stories... on a desolate plaza really take away from?) but out of selfishness and that's what my problem is... not the preservation aspect of it.

Boston is fighting development where it shouldn't (i.e. Gov't Center Garage, Aquarium Garage, etc) and promoting it where it shouldn't (i.e Shreve, Crump and Lowe) and THAT's my problem. Preservation is good, but they need to figure out what they should preserve. I'll take a gem like the SC&L building over 15 minutes of sunlight on a few buildings 3 months a year anyday. The right blend of preservation and development is what Boston needs. Right now, it's skewed heavily in the wrong direction.