The fates of three National Landmarks will be sealed on Monday when the U.S. Court of Appeals hears neighborhood pleas to halt plans for a handicapped accessible subway station in Copley Square. A tourist node in the heart of the Back Bay, Copley has become a legal battleground between proponents of preservation and advocates of accessibility who plan to construct elevators, headhouses and stairways on property in front of the Boston Public Library and Old South Church.

The Federal Transit Authority approved in December, 2004, the MBTA’s plans to construct or redesign five headhouses on the north and south sides of Boylston Street. On the south side, in front of the library, plans call for reconstructing a 1925 wrought iron headhouse, itself a National Landmark, on the library plaza and adding an elevator headhouse next to it. On the north side, next to Old South Church, plans call for replacing the existing outbound headhouse, adding an elevator headhouse behind it and adding another one over the open stair on the east side of Dartmouth Street. All headhouses would be 14-foot tall, glass structures except for the original wrought iron canopy.

The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and the Boston Preservation Alliance joined forces in February, 2005, to file a lawsuit alleging that the MBTA and the FTA failed to comply with federal and state historic preservation laws. The Boston Public Library and Old South Church, opposite the street from each other on the corner of Boylston and Dartmouth streets, are among fewer than 2,500 National Historic Landmarks designated by the Secretary of the Interior.

“[The library and the church] are among very few national treasures. That they are opposite each other (on the street) is our good fortune,” said Susan Park, president of the Preservation Alliance. “The intrusion of the headhouses is unacceptable to us.”

Denied an injunction to prevent the FTA from disbursing federal funds to the MBTA, NABB and the Preservation Alliance filed an appeal, which the court will hear on July 31.

“We are trying to do the right thing for everyone concerned, and it’s sad that the MBTA failed to protect two of the most historic buildings in the country,” said Steven Sayers, NABB’s vice president.

Groups on both sides agree that the MBTA faces challenges in bringing Boston’s subways into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. NABB and the Preservation Alliance, however, argue that the MBTA is settling for an inferior project instead of exploring alternatives. The groups also charged the MBTA with failure to solicit public input on the project or complete a review process by submitting its plans to the Federal Advisory Council in Washington DC.

“The MBTA’s own 1995 report shows credible options that locate structures that do not interfere with important pedestrian pathways, views or landmarked buildings. We know that there are other solutions that have not been adequately evaluated,” said Peter Sherin, NABB chair.

There is no doubt that NABB and the Preservation Alliance have taken an unpopular stance, with disabilities rights groups picketing in front of NABB’s Newbury Street office and an unflattering column in the Boston Globe earlier this year.

“They’ve lost a sense of perspective, and, in short, seem more concerned with the buildings of the Back Bay than the people who live and work inside them,” columnist Brian McGrory wrote in January. “Every day that people with disabilities lack easier access to the Back Bay is another day of embarrassment for this city—and another day of shame for NABB.”

NABB was upset by the portrayal.

“The public unfortunately read it that NABB was against the handicapped. We are absolutely not against the handicapped. We are for appropriate handicap access,” said NABB President Jolinda Taylor.

“We were never saying it shouldn’t be made handicapped accessible. We just said there were better ways to do it. We were perceived that we put buildings over people,” agreed archietect Janet Hurwitz, a member of NABB’s board of directors and former chair of its Architecture Committee.

The case has pit the city’s own future against the buildings of its past, but opponents of the MBTA’s plan believe that protecting landmarks and handicapped accessibility are not mutually exclusive.

“You can meet both of these needs if you do it right,” Hurwitz said. As part of the original team of consultants drafted in 1995 to explore options for bringing Boston’s subways into ADA compliance, Hurwitz researched Copley station and helped produce the MBTA’s Light Rail Accessibility Program Schematic Design Report. When she heard Barbara Boylan, MBTA director of design, present the agency’s chosen plan eight years later, in August, 2003, Hurwitz was shocked.

The plan called for the creation of five new headhouses near the library and the church, for a total of seven, which had the potential to destroy the structural integrity of the library and the church, Hurwitz said. Two headhouses for emergency staircases have since been eliminated.

“They were going to do what we thought was the worst possible of schemes. I knew that there were other options, but they made it sound like it was the only one,” she said. “It was presented as a done deal.”

In fact, Boylan told the audience that the plans were 75 percent complete, Hurwitz said. Representatives of the MBTA, including Boylan, did not return phone calls for this story. The MBTA has defended its plans to the media in the past by noting that the headhouse locations allow for the shortest path of travel and that costs would skyrocket if the structures were moved off of public property.

Hurwitz and Dorothy Bowmer, then co-chairs of NABB’s Architecture Committee, responded to the plans with a letter to Michael Mulhern, then general manager of the MBTA, outlining better options, all of which were mentioned in the 1995 report, Hurwitz said. Suggestions included moving one elevator headhouse away from the historic McKim building and towards the library’s newer Philip Johnson annex, and placing the other elevator headhouse away from the Old South Church, within the overhang of the building that houses the 7-11 convenience store on the east side of Dartmouth Street.

“Without coordinated planning and design, we are in danger of creating a hodgepodge of structures on one of Boston’s most important public blocks,” they wrote.

Richard Guy Wilson, a University of Virginia professor whose dissertation explored “Charles F. McKim and the Renaissance in America,” wrote in a June, 2005, letter that the MBTA’s plans would destroy the library’s steps and plaza.

“It is safe to say that the Boston Public Library is among the great American buildings. It is of course a National Historic Landmark, but it is far more than that, a building that easily ranks in the top ten of all American buildings,” he said. “Hence, when one approaches alterations to a building of the fame and magnitude of the BPL extreme care must be taken. The idea of sticking a modern transparent structure in that location must be avoided at all costs.”

Built in 1895, the Boston Public Library was designed by the firm McKim, Mead and White. Copley Station was constructed in front of the library in 1915—at one time it was suggested that the entrance be located inside the library—and its wrought iron headhouse was constructed in 1925 by the firm Fox, Jenny and Gale, whose architects were alumni of McKim, Mead and White and had worked on the original library.

“They really cared about doing it right,” Hurwitz said. The Beaux-Arts style headhouse repeats motifs in similar wrought iron grilles at the library entrances to reinforce the library’s design.

Meanwhile, the east façade of Old South Church, an 1875 example of High Victorian Gothic architecture, would be obstructed by the two headhouses to be built in front of it.

“The MBTA said it wouldn’t be that bad, but 14 feet is pretty damn tall,” Taylor said. She said that she is also concerned that the glass headhouses may attract advertising and graffiti.

The proximity of the headhouses to the church could also jeopardize the church’s foundation and lead to groundwater issues, Hurwitz said.

Boston’s disabled community is opposed to moving the elevator headhouses further away from the inbound and outbound platforms. Evelyne Milorin, community organizer for the Boston Center for Independent Living, said that she was not familiar enough with the plans to comment on its specifics but said that a handicapped accessible subway in Boston is long overdue. “As an advocate for people with disabilities, and even as someone who doesn’t have any limitations, I find it a really unacceptable condition that doesn’t meet our needs.”

The Governor’s office and the Mayor’s Office on Disability both declined to comment on this story. Opponents, however, remain vocal in their dissatisfaction over the MBTA’s current plan. If the MBTA initiated an open process early on, Hurwitz said, the legal battle could have been avoided.

For Park, of the Preservation Alliance, “You don’t get any more important than these two buildings. This is it.”

PHOTO CREDIT: Courtesy of the Mayor’s Office




Mayor Thomas Menino demonstrates how to use one of 50 new solar-powered BigBelly trash compactors at Downtown Crossing on Tuesday, July 25. Expect to see ten along Newbury Street and five on the Common, said Menino’s spokesperson Jennifer Mehigan.

Menino, along with Boston Public Works commissioner Joe Casazza, aide Tim McCarthy, Chief of Basic City Services Michael Galvin, and Jim Poss and Jack Kuter, of Sea Horse Power, which manufactured the compactors, unveiled the new device, which holds more than the receptacles currently used by the city. The BigBelly compactors only need to be emptied once or twice a day, and use solar power to produce neat bricks of trash that are easy for rubbish removal workers to collect.

Residents often suspect that some solicitors on Newbury Street are not legitimate. In the case of three young boys, however, things were better than they seemed.

These three boys, aged between 10 and 12, frequently approached business owners, pedestrians and tourists during the last two summers. Clad in faded tee shirts and clutching blue cans, the boys would stand for hours in the sun, supposedly collecting money for their track team. At the end of each day, a woman was seen collecting the money from the children, causing many to worry that the boys were being exploited.

Many calls came in to the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay office a few years ago from concerned parents and residents, according to Lois Harvey, office administrator. Some callers worried that the children were being used as props in a scam, while others were troubled by the long hours they spent on the corners of Newbury Street.

“Even if it is legit, these little kids should be playing, not working,” Harvey said.

Laura Fischer, a sales associate at LF on Newbury Street who was frequently asked to donate, was always curious about what sport and what team the children were soliciting for. She said that, when asked, the children were vague.

Adding to the mystery behind these children and whether they were legitimate was the woman’s involvement. Luis Sical, manager of the Danker and Donahue garage at 341 Newbury Street, said that she often parked her car in his garage and waited there for the children to finish.

Police officers eventually approached the woman to determine the legitimacy of her actions, said Carolyn MacNeil, District 4’s Community Service Coordinator. Surprisingly, she had the appropriate paperwork: a State Hawker and Peddler’s license. The woman did indeed have such a license and, according to police, the children were raising money for an annual track race in Florida.

The fine line between legitimate charity and scam is sometimes hard to determine, MacNeil said, and it is easy to see why people become confused. She described several ways that Back Bay residents can identify scams.

First, hawkers and peddlers are not allowed to remain in one location for more than 15 minutes. To remain longer in a particular area is considered trespassing, and bystanders have the right to ask about their motives. Next, hawkers and peddlers are required to display the license on their person. In a group, only one person is required to display that license. Citizens are within their rights to ask to see a hawker and peddler license before donating any money.

The best way to keep con artists from scamming money is to ask multiple questions about the charity, sport or event. MacNeil suggested requesting a website, address or phone number to find out more about the charity before donating any money.

City officials wants to help some communities revitalize themselves by increasing the number of beer and wine licenses available, but are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of response by the state—which has the last word.

But those who are being hurt the most, city officials say, are restaurateurs like Chris Spagnuolo, who has been trying to get a beer and wine license for quite some time.

About a year ago he spotted a vacant retail space near the intersection of Massachusetts and Commonwealth avenues which is the perfect place, he thought, to open a second and much bigger Panificio, the family-style restaurant he has owned for eleven years on Charles Street.

People passing by seemed to think so, too. “Once a package store, it had been vacant for four years,” Spagnuolo said. “People seem happy to have the space used once again, and like the idea of having a place they can bring their family to eat and enjoy a glass of wine or a cold beer.”

In about a week, he’ll open that restaurant in that space, now renovated with new restroom facilities, an eight-foot coffee bar and seating for 90 patrons plus 20 more on an outside patio.
But he won’t be serving beer and wine. “It’s a shame,” Spagnuolo said. “I keep appearing before the licensing board, but there are no new or transferable licenses available.”

When you open a restaurant in the city of Boston, you have two ways to get a beer and wine license: You can apply for a new license from the Licensing Board or you can ask that board to approve the transfer of an existing license from a restaurant no longer needing it.

But recently those two options have been problematic. On the one hand, the Licensing Board has no new licenses available because it has used up its quota of 320 licenses, a quota established by state statute in 1979. On the other hand, there have been no licenses available for transfer from restaurants that are closing.
To help alleviate this situation, Mayor Thomas Menino asked the Boston City Council in August, 2005 to approve a Home Rule Petition to the General Court to increase the number of wine and malt beverages licenses in the city of Boston by 30, bringing the quota to 350. “This act is proposed in response to the revitalization and growing vitality of the neighborhood business districts throughout the city, which are increasingly relying on small businesses, including restaurants whose success depends partially on their ability to serve wine and beer,” the mayor explained in a letter to the council.

The mayor had two stipulations, according to his spokesman, Jennifer Mehigan. The establishments receiving the licenses must close by 11 p.m. and can only serve beer and wine with food.

This spring, according to Councilor Michael Ross, the City Council passed a Home Rule Petition asking the state to amend the relevant Massachusetts General Laws to raise the quota from 320 to 380, an even greater increase than the mayor had requested. “There are restaurants throughout the city, like Panificio, that want a beer and wine license because it will make a difference in turning a restaurant into something that will draw people,” Ross said. “It is part of the solution to revitalizing these neighborhoods.”

The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay has not taken a formal position on this proposal. “We’re always concerned about increases in the number of licenses which might translate into more bars and restaurants,” said Licensing and Building Use Committee Chair Thomas High. “At the same time, however, we realize there are parts of Boston where additional neighborhood restaurants may be needed, and the current cap on wine and beer licenses may be causing a problem.

Daniel Pokaski, chair of the Licensing Board, said that while there is little need for additional licenses in Back Bay and Beacon Hill, other parts of the city really need more. “We are developing the seaport and main streets in other neighborhoods,” he said. “The neighborhoods need them because they want all the empty storefronts filled. We at the licensing board will control the licenses and give them only to the small specialty family restaurants where people come in to eat dinner.”

However, since the Home Rule Petition was sent to the state, it seems to have all but disappeared. According to an attorney for the House Counsel Office, a petition is first given a docket number and then forwarded to a committee for a vote. It is then given a bill number and sent to both the House and the Senate for approval.

But none of that seems to have happened. “We are waiting for approval from the legislature,” said Ross. “This is a vestige from one of the old laws when Boston had to ask permission to do anything, like changing the speed limit or appointing a police commissioner. And this vestige is being abused by the committee, and it is hurting the little guy.”

The petition was referred to the legislature’s Joint Committee on Consumer Protection & Professional Licensure, which deals with consumer protection and credit as well as the issuance of licenses for the sales of alcoholic beverages. “There is a rumor that it is floating around but I have never seen the bill,” said a spokesman for that committee.

“I have never seen it,” said State Senator Michael Morrissey who chairs the committee. “We have no bill.”
.
He then went on to explain that after the City Council passed the petition, he started receiving a lot of pressure from those who were not involved in the original proposal, such as hoteliers and others who wanted their needs met. Problems the committee must deal with in situations like this, he said, include striking a balance among the needs of different communities, the need for economic development, the potential devaluation of the cost of licenses already owned by restaurateurs and setting a precedent.

But, he said, he hopes to reach an agreement with all the parties involved and get it passed within a week or two. Mehigan confirmed that the mayor is in negotiations with Morrissey. However, according to the House Counsel, a Home Rule Petition is not amendable to a great degree. In most cases, the wording must be precisely the same as the original petition, so any new agreement would force the bill back to the city. Despite the fact that the formal session of the legislature ends July 31, the legislature can approve bills such as this during its informal session this summer and fall, he said.

Spagnuolo isn’t holding his breath, though. He’ll still keep his eyes open for a license transfer from another Boston restaurant that closes, he said.

Changes

Over the last 15 years, the Back Bay has changed in one important way. It has lost about 3,000 students who used to live around the neighborhood. Emerson College, in what now seems an inspired idea, has gradually moved its campus from a center on Beacon Street to a center around the Boylston Street T station and the theater district. (To some, it may still be the Combat Zone, but remembering that shows that some things in the city do change for the better.)

In retrospect it seems as if this move were foreordained—perhaps a result of a visionary college president. After all, a communications college, where theater arts are an important centerpiece, should naturally be located near theaters.

In the past, the college has had false starts trying to combine forces with other colleges and perhaps watering down its curriculum, or moving to a riverbank campus in Lawrence, as its leaders once planned. Most likely, Emerson leaders who decided to move to the theater district were just taking advantage of a real estate opportunity. Moving out of relatively small Back Bay buildings into stately blocks of under-used office buildings gave this college, which started in 1880 as a school of oratory, a chance to develop better facilities. When other buildings became available, the college bought them and ultimately created a new center. No matter how it was done, the move has benefited the college, its students and inadvertently, the city.

Now Emerson’s last few Back Bay buildings are on the market. Given their locations, they will probably be converted into housing.

It is interesting to note how Emerson’s actions have changed the Back Bay. It is also interesting to analyze the contradictions in some of those changes.

The biggest change resulting from Emerson’s move is at the corner of Berkeley and Beacon streets. Cars are still there. Revving motors, squealing brakes and impatient horns will distinguish that intersection as long as Berkeley Street spills into Storrow Drive. What’s gone from that corner are the kids—hordes of them spilling out of buildings and stopping traffic as they occupy the crosswalks. The sidewalks in that location are now fairly empty of people.

Another change is the condition of the buildings. They used to be run down. Their lintels were spawling. The fences were missing pieces. They were in a general state of overuse and decay.

Now they are handsome again, with pristine plantings and polished brass—looking much as they must have in the 1860s when they were new.

This corner, and much of the Back Bay, is going against a recent urban movement. While planners for the downtown and the area across the Fort Point Channel extoll mixed-use as a virtue in those locations, the residential sections of the Back Bay are becoming more residential rather than institutional or mixed use.

There are benefits to such a change. The neighborhood becomes quieter, and quiet is a virtue in many respects. After all, if you want action, you can always walk over to Newbury Street.

Besides, every city needs contrasts. While some people want quiet, others want the changing weather and aquatic action that comes with living along the harbor, while still others want the bustle of retail and offices and residences mixing it up. Making Back Bay quieter contributes to that contrast, offering all kinds of people the environment they prefer.

There are negatives to such a change. A lone pedestrian on a sidewalk without hustle and bustle can be a target for muggers. While the Back Bay is a safe place to walk at almost any time of day, it is still more comfortable to be walking alone on Newbury Street at 10 p.m. than on Commonwealth Avenue.

The changes are still going on. Fisher College and some MIT fraternity houses are now the primary college occupants of the Back Bay. Fisher just received approval to expand its administrative offices to One Arlington Street, a move the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, did not support. Most residents agree that Fisher has done an excellent job in the last three or four years of controlling its students. And probably many Back Bay residents, who might have themselves come to this city as students, understand that it is important to Boston’s future to accommodate its colleges and universities.

It’s the balance that is important. Boisterous students and quiet residents—not that all students are boisterous or all residents quiet. Institutions and housing. Retail and offices. Negotiating that balance is the duty of downtown Boston’s citizenry. It is a fascinating task—exciting and worth the effort.