Globe: Boston needs to be more shortsighted

"It is often noted that Harvard plans decades or even a century into the future," writes the broadsheet in a mind-blowing editorial this morning. "Allston residents, however, aren’t in a position to look that far down the pike." And just think of the terrible consequences for Harvard of its predilection for thinking of the future - if only it had chosen instead to think of the short-term, it might never have been afflicted with its huge endowment or national preeminence. Making plans with an eye toward their long-term costs and benefits isn't some effete Ivy League quirk. It's just common sense.

There's actually a good argument buried in the editorial. Harvard does indeed have an obligation to sign short-term leases for its vacant storefronts, and to think more creatively and proactively about maintaining and improving the neighborhood. The problems with Harvard's Allston development have been amply and ably documented on this blog. Harvard's ambitious plans were derailed by the slumping economy, and it is now mothballing its properties, with devastating consequences for the local community. But this editorial elevates the popular sport of Harvard-bashing to newly self-destructive heights.

The Globe suggests, for example, that Harvard "should also be willing to sell off properties that it might have preferred to build on." How, precisely, will that benefit the city or its residents? Land that was of relatively little value a decade ago will be snatched up by greedy developers, sensing a windfall. They'll be less easily influenced and less responsive to community concerns. In all probability, they'll either land-bank the lots themselves, or target their development to exploit the future proximity of the Harvard research facilities. The editorial likewise suggests that Harvard offer "leasing options to potential tenants with longer time frames than the 5-10 year period now favored by the university." Because, you know, Harvard is in the wrong for planning for the long-term - and also in the wrong for its failure to offer leases for the long term. In the Globe's ideal world, I suppose, Harvard would tie-up its property for decades, on the basis of a plan that only looked a few years ahead. Do they even read this stuff before the publish it?

And then, we get to the really silly stuff. The Globe excoriates Harvard for leaving "key parcels...empty or underutilized, including a former Volkswagen dealership on Western Avenue and vacant gas station in Barry’s Corner." Riiight. Because there's nothing that says vibrant retail district or residential neighborhood like an auto lot and a gas station. The situation in those parcels is bad. It was bad when they were occupied, and it's bad now that they're vacant. But Harvard's impact has been, at worst, marginal. The Western Ave strip had languished for decades, unable to attract the sorts of stores or businesses that its neighbors wanted. Harvard's plan offers its first hope of improvement in a very long time. And the Globe wants to scuttle it, because it's taking too long?

If, instead, the city were to mix patience with pressure - insisting that Harvard ameliorate the situation in the short-term while supporting their long-term plans - it has an excellent chance of cashing in on the biotech boom. The Harvard plan will take a huge tract of land that was mostly used for transportation facilities, space-intensive low budget retail, and the like, and transform it into a pedestrian-friendly campus, teeming with highly-paid researchers, and likely to spin-off innumerable private ventures. It's worth the wait. The challenge here is making the wait less unpleasant. We can successfully plan for both the short- and long-term, an idea that seems to elude the Globe. In fact, we have to, if we want the city to continue to prosper.