In its own snarky way, this piece is about as balanced as your average story on Fox News. The intention here is not to provide an accurate analysis of what actually happened but to use information selectively to create a distinctly misleading and one-sided impression of Assembly Square's actual history.
For example, the article fails to mention that current construction at Assembly Square includes hundreds of units of housing: the new Assembly Square won't be a windswept mall but a new riverfront neighborhood built on mixed-use, transit-oriented, smart growth planning principles. The housing component is an important detail, but it doesn't fit into the relentlessly negative narrative, so the authors left it out.
And this passage is especially troubling: "[R]ather than stop development in its tracks, Mystic View, FRIT, and IKEA entered mediation to determine the future of Assembly Row. In the process, all sides secured concessions, resulting in a sort of stalemate. As part of the agreement, residents were promised designated office and R&D facilities, plus ample open green space along the Mystic. FRIT and IKEA also pitched in $15 million for the Orange Line station."
Judging by the public comments (then and since) of all parties to that agreement (which was brokered at Mayor Curtatone's request by former Conservation Law Foundation President Doug Foy), the results were anything but a stalemate. After years of controversy, the agreement allowed a much-needed development project to move forward with the blessing of all sides in the debate. That's not a stalemate -- that's a breakthrough.
Of course one might argue -- and I would readily agree -- that there is usually more than one way to look at any issue. You might, for example, see the arrival of Federal Realty as a chance for the previous owners to flip valuable real estate for a quick profit (and that's inherently vile, isn't it?) or you can see it as the departure of developers who didn't get the whole smart-growth-mixed-use concept and their replacement by a well-financed national company that had experience with just that kind of development.
But once again, an evenhanded approach that considered both possibilities would only confuse the narrative.
Now, as a former City Hall flack, I am easy to dismiss -- and so are my opinions. Certainly in the authors' worldview, I am a stooge of the Man, a paid lackey of the municipal-industrial complex, out to screw the Little People. Thus it has always been and thus it must be now, right? (Although if that's really true, somebody owes me a big under-the-table payoff.)
By all means, read the Dig piece and judge for yourselves. But also consider viewing this 2008 City Cable video documentary on Assembly Square:
no subject
For example, the article fails to mention that current construction at Assembly Square includes hundreds of units of housing: the new Assembly Square won't be a windswept mall but a new riverfront neighborhood built on mixed-use, transit-oriented, smart growth planning principles. The housing component is an important detail, but it doesn't fit into the relentlessly negative narrative, so the authors left it out.
And this passage is especially troubling: "[R]ather than stop development in its tracks, Mystic View, FRIT, and IKEA entered mediation to determine the future of Assembly Row. In the process, all sides secured concessions, resulting in a sort of stalemate. As part of the agreement, residents were promised designated office and R&D facilities, plus ample open green space along the Mystic. FRIT and IKEA also pitched in $15 million for the Orange Line station."
Judging by the public comments (then and since) of all parties to that agreement (which was brokered at Mayor Curtatone's request by former Conservation Law Foundation President Doug Foy), the results were anything but a stalemate. After years of controversy, the agreement allowed a much-needed development project to move forward with the blessing of all sides in the debate. That's not a stalemate -- that's a breakthrough.
Of course one might argue -- and I would readily agree -- that there is usually more than one way to look at any issue. You might, for example, see the arrival of Federal Realty as a chance for the previous owners to flip valuable real estate for a quick profit (and that's inherently vile, isn't it?) or you can see it as the departure of developers who didn't get the whole smart-growth-mixed-use concept and their replacement by a well-financed national company that had experience with just that kind of development.
But once again, an evenhanded approach that considered both possibilities would only confuse the narrative.
Now, as a former City Hall flack, I am easy to dismiss -- and so are my opinions. Certainly in the authors' worldview, I am a stooge of the Man, a paid lackey of the municipal-industrial complex, out to screw the Little People. Thus it has always been and thus it must be now, right? (Although if that's really true, somebody owes me a big under-the-table payoff.)
By all means, read the Dig piece and judge for yourselves. But also consider viewing this 2008 City Cable video documentary on Assembly Square:
(Part One) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE7gdShC8tw)
(Part Two) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJYxnXiG4M4)
Or this 2011 update (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osO3_hm-Et8) on WBGH TV's Great Boston with Emily Rooney.
Maybe you can find some middle ground that partakes of both viewpoints.