Archive for June 27th, 2010

June 27th, 2010

Charles Cowley – Week 3

by DickH

In 1868, Lowell resident Charles Cowley wrote the “Illustrated History of Lowell”, a book filled with fascinating facts about our city. Here’s my third weekly compilation of “tweeting” from Cowley’s book:

June 19 – In 1686 Col Tyng, Maj Henchman et al purchased from Wannalancet all land in region, leaving native Americans hunting & fishing rights

June 22 – During King William’s War (1688-96) the fort at Pawtucket Falls was garrisoned but in Aug 1692 Indians killed 8 in Billerica

June 23 – On August 5, 1695, an Indian raid on Tewksbury (then part of Billerica) left 14 residents dead

June 23 – Dracut was incorporated in 1701 with 25 families. Previously part of Chelmsford, it was named for the Varnum’s parish in Wales

June 25 – After King Phillip’s War, some Chelmsford residents occupied Indian land in Wamesit and began using it as their own

June 26 – In 1725 Samuel Pierce elected to represent Chelmsford in General Court but he lived in Wamesit and was not allowed to serve

June 27 – When General Court refused to seat Samuel Pierce, residents of Wamesit stopped paying taxes so GC annexed it to Chelmsford

June 27th, 2010

Big week in real estate

by DickH

The coming week should be one of the busiest of the year in the real estate world. Buyers seeking to claim the Federal first time home buyer tax credit of $8000 must complete their closing by June 30 to qualify (they had to have the property under agreement by April 30). The last day of June has always been busy at the Registry of Deeds. Not only is it the end of the fiscal year for many corporations, but families who have waited until school is out before moving find the end of June to be the first opportunity to close. I’ll report back Wednesday night with a report on the day’s activities.

June 27th, 2010

Don Chiofaro going at it again: building on the Greenway? by Marjorie Arons-Barron

by Tony

The entry below was cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

For some observers, Don Chiofaro is a character out of Ayn Rand, the larger-than-life developer who muscles aside naysayers to create huge and exciting structures that fulfill his vision. For others, he is simply a bulldog, who insists on doing things his way, a person who, as WBUR radio put it yesterday, sees “development as a contact sport.”

He certainly is one of the more interesting characters on Boston’s landscape. Son of a cop, one-time captain of the Harvard football team, it’s a good story line. The developer of International Place, who almost lost his building to his lenders, now wants to build twin (600’) towers on the site of the Boston Harbor Garage, as squat and ugly a building as exists on the Greenway. Whether Mayor Menino objects to the substance of  the proposal and/or the proposer (the Mayor’s press secretary denies the latter), the city insists the towers be just 200’, a zoning standard expected to be adopted at the BRA’s July 20 board meeting. Obviously, if something were to be built, the answer lies somewhere in between, balancing aesthetics with economic feasibility, and Chiofaro would have to seek a variance from the zoning.

The monetary case for the proposal is clear: city and state tax revenues, linkage money, thousands of jobs. But dollars alone shouldn’t dictate what you build in a newly available precious space that could dramatically improve people’s quality of life and enjoyment of the seaport area of the city.

On its surface, the idea of building twin towers on the Greenway seems to contradict the very idea of what the Greenway was supposed to accomplish, replacing the Central Artery with open space and access to the harbor. But Chiofaro’s design has much to recommend it. The towers are sleek and bold, and, as architects observed in the Boston Globe, they have the drama and energy one sees in buildings springing up in Asia.

He’d provide an 88′-wide opening from the Greenway to the Harbor between the buildings. That’s 70 percent wider than the path to the Harbor at Rowes Wharf. Chiofaro plans to create an enhanced pedestrian plaza between his site and the New England Aquarium. And, if he gets to build on the garage site, which he now owns, Chiofaro should be expected to take more than a passing interest in the ongoing enhancement of the Greenway. That would be a plus: the Greenway Conservancy needs all the help it can get.

For now, it’s one step at a time. Chiofaro is dealing with shadow studies, wind and other impacts. He is trying to convince people that his design can humanize the landscape and create a path to the sea. Kairos Shen, the chief planner for the city, says, according to WBUR, he has no intention of letting one developer hijack the skyscape of the city. But where was the Boston Redevelopment Authority when the mayor contemplated a since-aborted 80-story building over the Federal Street wind tunnel, adjacent to Winthrop Square? Meanwhile, the BRA requested data (a so-called scoping determination) from Chiofaro last summer and has yet to receive it. So the process isn’t dead.

A multi-use development of the scope that Chiofaro proposes only happens with transparency and robust discussions involving city officials and community. Unless the city has a better alternative, Menino and Chiofaro need to drop the Hatfield/McCoy posture, roll up their sleeves and work together to make something happen.

June 27th, 2010

Globe revisits fatal Lowell fire

by DickH

Today’s Globe publishes a major investigative report re-examining the evidence in a 1982 Lowell fire on Decatur Street that killed 8 people. Immediately after the fire was extinguished on March 5, 1982, investigators suspected arson and the trail soon led to 24-year old Victor Rosario who signed a statement incriminating himself during a lengthy interrogation session at the Lowell Police Department. Rosario, who was convicted of arson and eight counts of murder, continues to serve his life sentence, but a new defense team has assembled evidence that they claim raises doubt about his conviction and plan to file a motion for a new trial soon.

The story balances this “new” evidence with an interview with Harold Waterhouse, the long-time Lowell arson investigator and lead investigator on this case, who retired more than 20 years ago but who is still around and very active in the community. (If you follow the above link to the story on boston.com, be sure to watch the embedded 6 minute video which features an interview with Hal).

Besides the Lowell connection, this story is significant as an example of a new model of investigative reporting. The story is written and reported not by Boston Globe reporters, but by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting at Boston University, “a non-profit, university based investigative reporting center” that trains students to be journalists and “helps to fill the ever-widening void of investigative and explanatory reporting” in the shrinking mainstream media.

As for the prospects of the motion for a new trial, it’s tough to say. Our legal system, especially when it comes to criminal law, is inexact, at best. The process usually gets it right, but sometimes mistakes are made. When mistakes are uncovered, they should be corrected. But because the criminal justice process is so inexact, even when the correct result is reached, it’s easy to pick apart the process, especially long after the fact.

June 27th, 2010

What’s Behind the Dam?

by PaulM

When people who lived and worked in Lowell were trying to figure out how to revive the city in the 1960s and ’70s, one piece of wisdom that emerged during the planning was that it makes sense for Lowell as a community to invest in its assets that can’t be taken away. Lowell people had experienced the worst of the economic boom-and-bust cycles. The city was a case study of boom-and-bust. The new thinking 40 years ago was about stabilizing the city’s fortunes to the extent possible by extracting value from sustainable resources like the city’s history, cultural heritage, and natural features.

People were talking about preserving and reusing buildings; cleaning the rivers; making the state forest and urban waterways accessible; making the history public through tours, exhibits, and books; and celebrating the multi-ethnic social fabric. It was a new way of thinking about economic development. Much of this has happened. The lesson learned is that those things that make the city distinctive are assets whose constant value does not depend on one particular corporation or a group of outside investors. Lowell’s architecture, nature, and culture cannot be taken away like a textile company or a computer firm.

Fast forward to the debate over the Pawtucket Falls dam, which is recognized as a national landmark and stands as a monument to the origin of this place as the prototypical industrial city in America. The dam in its current form is an essential element of Lowell National Historical Park. A large corporation, not owned by Lowell investors,  is asking for permission from the city to change the appearance and operation of the dam. The corporation is doing what it is expected to do:  trying to increase its efficiency and profits. The proposed changes would be costly and prohibitively expensive to reverse in the future should that be desired. The question for the Lowell community is whether the likely unalterable change to the historic structure should be allowed for relatively short-term business gains now. What if ownership of the dam changes? Lowell has seen companies come and go. What does Lowell lose as a result of the proposed change? Pawtucket Falls is a unique scenic vista in the city. The Old North Bridge in Concord hasn’t been replaced by a steel footbridge so that it will last longer and hold more people.

Concerned Pawtucketville residents are better equipped than me to make the neighborhood flooding impact argument, so I’ll let them speak to that issue. My point here is that Lowell has learned that its special character has enormous value over the long-term. The hydropower plant is an important green energy business and is profitable now, which is a good thing, otherwise it would not be in the corporation’s interest to operate every day. What is the trade-off for increased efficiency and earnings? What does Lowell gain or lose? Is the change worth it?