The question we ought to be debating, perhaps, is whether we want to be America’s Florence or its Milan — a cultural and educational capital, or a business one. Or both? Exactly how much do we want to grow, anyway? And with what kind of growth cells? That’s a debate that should be public and vociferous.
That’s Globe architecture critic Robert Campbell with an excellent polemic against Mayor Menino’s planned vanity skyscraper. His point echoes a couple of bloggers who’ve made similar points, but he expands the no-vote to a larger meditation on urban planning in Boston and a celebration of Boston’s "high spine" layout.
The problem, politically, is that it’s going to take a lot to dissuade the Mayor from his course. Either some well-connected people picking up the phone or a lot of city residents protesting and showing their dissatisfaction. It will take more than the protests over the Gaiety theatre, and frankly since there’s no built-in constituency affected here, people probably aren’t going to bother.
Yes, we should have a public debate about urban planning and the direction of the city. The last election, however, proved that not many people want to. Certainly not the Globe or the Herald or the Phoenix, who could allude to issues of substance in their coverage of city council and mayoral races but were far more concerned with the horse race. Not to the city councilors who couldn’t be bothered to answer a questionnaire that actually dealt with planning issues (notable exception: Michael Flaherty). Not the voters who were happy to rally around their tribe and to emphasize issues that were beyond the scope of city government anyway. We had an election between a Boston city government that was democratically accountable and one which was a juggernaut of a machine. Menino won, and I don’t see how to stop whatever major initiative he wants, whether it’s a biolab or free wifi or an ill-conceived skyscraper.
No comments have been added to this post yet.