Thursday, September 14th 2006
T-accessible sites: area cemeteries #1: Mt. Auburn
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 10:23 am in [ MBTA -
Boston -
parks -
nonesuch ]
‘Tis the season to visit your local cemeteries! There are some gorgeous burial grounds in these parts, and autumn’s the time to take ‘em in.
I recently paid a visit to Mt. Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. It was a beautiful, crisp, clear day, perfect for climbing Washington Tower, with its marvelous view of Boston.

Well, OK, maybe “marvelous” is too marvelous a word for it. I mean, it’s still Boston. But it’s a nice view. As good a view as you’re likely to get, anyway.
I was there with my old friend Robert, the one who dragged me through the mega-maze the week before. And as you might expect given a trip to the graveyard, we got to talking about bodies, and what to do with them when you’re done with them (or what you arrange to have done with them once they’re done with you, which is the more likely scenario). I said I wanted mine disposed of in the most expedient manner possible, and thought cremation would do just fine. He objected to cremation, on environmental grounds. Chemicals and things, I guess. But until they come up with some sort of deep-space laser-blaster particle-dispersal mechanism, cremation will have to do. I certainly don’t want to be embalmed. I don’t want my body displayed (it’s as creepy as people staring at you when you’re sleeping). And I would never, never, never leave my body to science, for fear that it would end up in the hands of first year med students, who would give my corpse a pet name, and then cut off my head, hands and penis for laughs. No thank you.
If you want to know some of the ways in which your corpse is put to use when you leave it to Science, Mary Roach’s Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers is a good read. But not on a full stomach.
Robert said he didn’t know why I should care what happened to my body after I’d vacated it. It wouldn’t be me, after all. Just my body. Which I would no longer be in.
Well, whatever. I wasn’t going to get into that whole mind-body thing again with him. You know, I can understand if you have a contentious relationship with your body–and who doesn’t?–you might be thinking, good riddens! But it’s not that cut and dry. The fact is, we are our bodies (I feel like a property dualist today). If you don’t agree with the our bodies, ourselves hypothesis, go talk to some poor short, bald slob with bad teeth who’s making ten grand less than his coworker in the next cubicle, who’s a foot taller with a full head of hair and a mouthful of pearly whites. Go tell it to the disagreeable dude with the little prick in the giant SUV, honking his impotent horn and screaming obscenities at the guy in the minicooper with the placid demeanor who’s slung like an ox (trust me, I’ve done a lot of research on this, and size really does matter). Or the plain jane with irritable bowel syndrome and a persistant skin rash who can’t enjoy a day out with her perky roommate, who looks like Angelina Jolie, can eat all the ice cream she wants and never get fat, and loves to bungie jump with her hunky boyfriend, Brad. Not to mention that epilepsy, schizophrenia, clinical depression, and alcoholism are all physical ailments that play a huge role in bahavior, character, and personality–in who we are to ourselves and others.
But even in those of us without serious physical and mental conditions, don’t underestimate the power of a hardy constitution–or, conversely, the power of irritable bowels: our personalities and our characters are very much shaped by these things, too. The idea that there is some pristine spirit unaffected by the physical that’s just waiting to take flight from its gnarly old body is wishful thinking (mostly of those with irritable bowels, I think).
But I didn’t get into any of this with Robert, really. All I said was, I think of my body as a buddy, a companion in this life, and I would not want to think of it being molested in any way while I was helpless to prevent it. Maybe I’m selfish, but we came into this world together, and I would like us to go out together, too. I think a healthy concern for your own corpse is a quite natural extension of the survival instinct that’s kept you and your body together all your life.
He said, still, you won’t know any better, whatever the case. The only people it should matter to are those you leave behind.
He was actually rather strident on the point, but the fact remains, my remains are my remains. If he wants his thrown to wild dogs, I have no particular objections. What you do or have done with your body is up to you in the end. I, personally, have few sentimental attachments, aside from this. I have an odd affection for this vessel, and I don’t want to cast it off like some old junker I drove into the ground. Remember that Neil Young song, “Long May You Run”?
Weve been through some things together
With trunks of memories still to come
We found things to do in stormy weather
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Long may you run.
Although these changes have come
With your chrome heart shining in the sun
Long may you run.
That was a tribute to his car, for chrissake. People love their cars like that, I can love my corpse.
Robert had expressed some interest in seeing the “Body Worlds” show at the Museum of Science, which I’d first read about a decade ago in The London Review of Books (I was so much smarter then than I am now), on a train from Frankfurt (and well-traveled, too), as I recall. (I mention all this only because I want to stress I worked through any issues I may have had with Creepy Dr. von Hagens long ago.) Der gute Doktor was taking his traveling macabre to all the capitals of Europe. There was a bigger hooha over the plastination and display of skinned bodies over there than there has been over here, surprisingly. I think if an American had done it we might have been more alarmed by it. We’ve come to expect this sort of thing from creepy doctors with German accents, and von Hagens definitely has that shtick down:
You can bet he’s wearing black leather gloves, too.
I do think it’s all in the worst possible taste, though I wouldn’t say it’s immoral. (Bad taste should be immoral, but it’s not.) And it’s not that I’m not all rah-rah! for science, either. But, anyway, von Hagens is more a showman than a scientist in the end. Defying British law he performed a public autopsy (the first in nearly 170 years) in the Old Truman Brewery in London’s Brick Lane back in 2002, and the reviews were luke warm at best. One eyewitness said von Hagens “often appeared out of his depth.” The Guardian reported: “He struggled to saw open the skull, handing over his hacksaw to an assistant as the bone splintered, and couldn’t find the pancreas.”
Von Hagens himself says he’s part artist, part scientist, but do his plastinated corpses hold up as art? I don’t think so. They’re spectacle. Period. they’re corpse as kitsch. You want art from corpses, take the sometimes appalling, often breathtaking, always horrifically beautiful photographs of Joel-Peter Witkin:

Joel-Peter Witkin’s Glassman, 1990.
Witkin’s pictures call to mind the beauty of Baudelaire’s “
Une Charogne“: “And the sky was watching that superb cadaver/Blossom like a flower.”
Hmm.
Should my corpse survive me, that’s what I hope it will aspire to.
To get to Mt. Auburn Cemetery via T: At Harvard Square Station (Red Line), take either the Watertown Square or Waverley Square trolley (#71 or #73). Get off on Mount Auburn Street at Aberdeen Avenue. Cross Mount Auburn Street to the Entrance Gate.
Monday, September 11th 2006
a trip to the MFA, where our hero encounters Whistler’s Mother in a crowd, surrounded by snakes, lobsters, fish and frogs, and various and sundry very naughty animals, domesticated and wild
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 12:18 pm in [ MBTA -
Boston -
nonesuch ]
Fortunately, a friend of mine was able to wrangle up some free tickets to the “Americans in Paris” exhibition at the MFA. I say “fortunately” because after seeing it, I know I would have been upset by it had I paid twenty-three bucks to get in. Sunday morning was definitely not the time to go. Here’s what it was like:

It should be heartening to see so many people getting excited about 19th Century art, I guess. But it’s actually not hard to see the appeal (it was much harder to see the art, in fact)–not much has really changed since then, as for the aspirations of the middle class. Styles of dress have come and gone, but the modus operandi is intact. We can still identify fully with Mary Cassatt’s subjects. We may think we have come a long way, baby, since Sargent’s Madame X scandalized society in 1884, but artists and advertisers are operating along the same lines today.
Aside from Madame X, the show’s centerpiece seems to have been Whistler’s Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist’s Mother, 1871, which people in the gallery flocked to, for some reason. There seems to be a sentimental attachment to the picture that goes utterly counter to the artist’s intentions for it. He painted it as an arrangement of objects, essentially, not as a portrait. But sentimentality was the lens through which art and culture were viewed by the bourgeois in the Victorian era. And not much has changed in this, either.
“Whistler’s Mother” was given a wall of its own, which further lent it an aura of importance. The exhibition organizers seemed to say, “lookit, here’s something.” I’m not sure if it would have commanded quite as much attention if it had been presented differently. Not that it’s not worthy, in its way. It’s an interesting picture, with an interesting past, for sure.
I didn’t spend much time scrutinizing it, myself, though. It was hard to spend much time with any one painting, there were so many people pressing to get up close and personal with all of them. It was so crowded and stuffy in the hall, that we didn’t spend much time there–I think we were probably in and out in fifteen minutes.
I decided it would be more fun to hunt the halls of the MFA for animal portraiture, anyway. This took us to several galleries, where we found some snakes, lobsters, fish and frogs:

(All on this delightful mid-16th century oval platter attributed to Bernard Pallisy, which my friend said would be an absolute bitch to clean. I told him, not to worry, we have people for that. He scoffed, saying, “and anyway what on earth would you serve in it?” I told him I thought Jell-O would be cool.)
And, of course there were lots of dogs, doing what dogs do. Far too many for this humble blog (they deserve an art-dog blog of their own). But here are a couple of my favorites:
Emanuel de Witte’s Interior of the Nieuwe Kerk, Amsterdam, 1677
and:
David Teniers, The Younger’sButcher Shop, 1642
On our way out of the museum we had to drop by the Rococo Room, where they’ve got this magnificent Boucher displayed:

Now, what would you guess the title of this painting is? The Battle of…? Perhaps The Triumph of…?Actually it’s Return from Market. What an ordeal, eh? All for a few eggs, a hunk of cheese, and a loaf of bread. It reminded me a little of getting to Trader Joe’s by T, truth be told.
Monday, September 11th 2006
Great Moments in T cinematic History: Next Stop Wonderland
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 9:20 am in [ MBTA -
fear & loathing in Boston -
city life -
Boston ]
I caught the last half of
Next Stop Wonderland, which was released back in ‘98 but which I did not rush right out and see at the time for some reason, last night. Let me just say, first of all: she should have gone to Brazil, because if there were a
Wonderland II, Orange Line (Next stop: Roxbury Crossing!), Hope Davis would have found that the dude whose armpit she wound up in (the actor’s name is Cheeseman, for chrissake) was a freakin crystal meth addict who was going to end up stealing her paychecks and blowing all their income on cross-dressing prostitutes he’s picked up at Jacques, thus forcing them to live two blocks from Jackson Square.
I did find the scene where she finally meets Mr. He’ll-Have-To-Do fairly accurate, I have to say. She’s on her way to the airport via blue line train, to catch a flight to São Paulo with some guy (well, not just some guy–the muito delicioso José Zúñiga, for the love of pete) she met only a couple days before. But she’s got misgivings. See, he’s a little too something for her. You know, his je ne sais quoi is off the charts. Mostly what he had too much of, seemed like to me, was sex appeal. Because everyone else in this movie was just utterly Blah. Ol’ hopeless Hope could’ve used someone like José to find her freak switch, and flip it on for her. Instead, she finds herself in thin-lipped Cheeseman’s armpit, totally intoxicated by his cheesiness, apparently, and they run off to Revere Beach together. Now, that’s romance!
Anyway, what I found accurate, as I was saying, was when she’s on the blue line train, before ending up in Cheeseman’s armpit, and she looks around at all the people crowded into it during the morning rush hour, and it’s like the train of the living dead. I thought, right on. That’s it. You look around on the T and that’s just what you see. Zombies. Thinking to themselves: “why can’t I just die, already?”
And then she runs off with one of the living dead, to have zombie crack babies (hey, that’d be a great name for a band, don’t you think?)! And José finds another blonde on the plane to make eyes at and serenade with samba. All’s well that ends well.
Saturday, September 9th 2006
Abominable or simply misunderstood? (Boston’s architectural abominations #2)
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 7:22 pm in [ city life -
Boston -
architectural abominations ]
I opened the old mailbag this morning and found this letter from Lars in Assen (that’s in the Netherlands–no, seriously):
Dear Mike,
What does constitute an architectural abomination?
Love, Lars.
That’s a good question, Lars!
There are buildings in Boston, as in any city, that are bad, but when does bad become abominable? Well, size is definitely a factor. I mean, take the Abominable Snowman.

If it turned out he was four-foot-three he would probably be downgraded to “the Annoying Snowman.” (And his salary would, of course, be adjusted accordingly.) He might even turn out to be “the Cute, Goofy, Lovable, Harmless, and Simply Misunderstood Snowman.”

In which case, calling him “abominable” would not only seem slightly malicious, it would probably say a lot more about those who called him that than it would about him in the end. So, we need to be mindful.
But context is also a factor. Our four-foot-three “Lovable Bumble” might still behave abominably towards a tribe of arctic pygmies who stand, on average, three-foot-four. To them he might still be justifiably “abominable.”
It may be instructive to have a look at an example or two of architectural annoyances that, to the untrained eye, might seem abominable, and might well be abominable in another setting, but don’t quite make it here.
On a walk through the business district yesterday looking for abominations I came across this slightly menacing structure on the corner of Franklin and Congress, which gave me pause:

It has some of the markings of an abomination, to be sure. The crappy materials and cursory construction. The lame trope of the round columns that weakly protest: “I am not just temporary shelter. Would I need ROUND columns if I were?” But ultimately I had to conclude over and against its pathetic protestations, that, indeed, it is a temporary structure that had only been pretending (and pretending poorly) to be permanent just long enough to get itself built in the first place. And, unfortunately, abominations are forever. So, no dice.
And let’s be frank. It simply isn’t enough of anything to be truly offensive. It’s like someone shouting an insult from a passing car. And? It might sting for a moment, but then it’s over, and you get on with your life. A true abomination does not run from confrontation. It seeks it out. And strikes again and again and again. It does not toss out a random insult from a safe distance. Determined, relentless, it seeks to crush everyone and everything in its wake with the insult of its undeniable existence. It is so big it easily snuffs out any protestation. “I AM!” It roars. “what’s done is done and cannot be undone!” Like Evil itself, once conjured it is so big it must be endured, for, barring a bigger evil bringing it down, it simply cannot be destroyed.
Of course, architectural abominations are of their very nature hugely imposing. They are the bullies of the urban landscape. Their size alone renders them powerful, and amplifies their disregard into a sustained psychic assault. Regardless of their original intent, they do violence to being simply by being.
It might be heresy to say it these days, but the World Trade Center towers in New York City were abominations, and the fact that there were two of them, side by side, was so in-your-face, it left no room at all for doubt. One was the insult, the other the injury. That it took an act of pure evil to bring them down shows you how close to pure evil they, themselves, were.
Unfortunately, I fear that what will replace them will be even worse. Because these new structures will be so overloaded with supercynical symbolic significance–I mean, “Freedom Tower”?–they’ll be giant glitzy beacons of kitsch. They’ve redesigned one with some flashy-ass diamonds on top that’ll light up at night.
But New Yorkers will adapt and eventually embrace whatever obscenity ends up scrawled on their skyline, because, frankly, what else can they do? Sometimes there’s nothing for it but to turn the other cheek. What we saw with the WTC, once the structures were gone, could only be defined as an architectural version of the Stockholm Syndrome. The bullied found that they had actually learned to love these bullies. New York and the world belatedly embraced these abominations.
But, I digress.
Our little architectural annoyance on Franklin and Congress with its ridiculous round columns tries in vain to convince us that it really is a permanent structure–it aspires to be abominable!–but it’s painfully obvious, even to the untrained eye, that it is a heap of concrete and glass just waiting to collapse in on itself. This whole building is merely a prelude to rubble. And abominations, as I’ve said already, are for the ages.
But what can it do but pretend? If it didn’t at least make some gesture toward pretending it was an actual building no one would feel safe enough–and just enough–to actually go inside it. It is not a great pretender (we’ll see some of those later), but it doesn’t need to be. It’s like those party-filler people you have to have at a gala, who everybody knows are just bodies, and nothing more. They make a cursory effort to dress for the occasion, but they still come off as shabby. And you don’t have to look closely to see it. They just don’t have it, whatever it is. That somebody thing. That golden aura of somebodiness. Instead they have the dull, brownish patina of anybodiness, like so many old spoons in a forgotten drawer somewhere.
You feel sorry for them, in a detached sort of way, but you realize parties need bodies, and not every body is going to be somebody’s body. Likewise, cities need buildings. What if you threw a city and no buildings came? Well, you’d be Des Moines. This little building knows what it is, and knows that knowing entails making some kind of minimal effort, however transparent, to pretend it doesn’t know. That’ll get you in the door.
But it’s clearly not an abomination. An architectural annoyance is as bad as it gets.
Contextwise, it is also at a definite disadvantage, being right across from–actually under the rump of the Level 1 Abomination of 100 Federal Street, dubbed “the pregnant building,” which is actually as close to an architectural rendering of a teatless Venus of Willendorf as a 1.3 million-square-foot office tower can get.

Now, I want to be perfectly clear about this. I have nothing against the Venus. Some of my best friends are, er, Venuses. But again, it’s a matter of degrees. The original Venus of Willendorf is 4 3/8 inches tall. The version on display at 100 Federal Street is 36 stories. And frankly, I don’t want to be standing under her when she drops her load, whatever her load may be. Know what I’m saying? Plus, like I said, 100 Federal Street has been rendered teatless, and…I mean, come on. If you’re gonna do it, do it.
But that’s not why 100 Federal Street is an abomination. It’s an abomination, first of all, because it’s plopped itself down in the middle of things without any attempt at all to harmonize with its surroundings. Look at the picture. It looks like an elephant in a crowded elevator. All the other buildings are like, “damn, guess I’ll, er, get out of your way.” That’s not how to be a nice building. That’s not how to make friends in the city.
It’s an abomination, secondly, because its proportions are clumsily provocative, but to no end. It provokes you and offers you nothing for your trouble. Like a chunky old painted harlot in a seedy bar who at last call, when you’re finally drunk enough, you find still just wants to talk. And what she wants to talk about is her sciatica, or her lifelong battle with lupus.
It’s not a sexy building. And while there’s no crime in not being sexy, a smarter building, like the Fiduciary Trust Building down the way at 175 Federal Street–

–can work it. Fiduciary Trust is a lovely structure, in its modest way. It knows its limitations, which is certainly the most important thing to know. It knows that black is slimming, which is the next most important thing to know. It’s a tad mysterious, with a tale to tell, but it’s not going to ram it down your throat. You’re going to have to notice it first, and then buy it a few drinks, and then a few more drinks, and then tease it out. But it’ll make it worth your while. It’s a Dorothy Parker kind of building–clever, incisive, sardonic, like “A Certain Lady”:
Oh, I can smile for you, and tilt my head,
And drink your rushing words with eager lips,
And paint my mouth for you a fragrant red,
And trace your brows with tutored finger-tips.
When you rehearse your list of loves to me,
Oh, I can laugh and marvel, rapturous-eyed.
And you laugh back, nor can you ever see
The thousand little deaths my heart has died.
And you believe, so well I know my part,
That I am gay as morning, light as snow,
And all the straining things within my heart
You’ll never know.
Oh, I can laugh and listen, when we meet,
And you bring tales of fresh adventurings, —
Of ladies delicately indiscreet,
Of lingering hands, and gently whispered things.
And you are pleased with me, and strive anew
To sing me sagas of your late delights.
Thus do you want me — marveling, gay, and true,
Nor do you see my staring eyes of nights.
And when, in search of novelty, you stray,
Oh, I can kiss you blithely as you go ….
And what goes on, my love, while you’re away,
You’ll never know.
Have you forgotten 100 Federal Street yet? The most abominable thing about it is that it’s such a behemoth it will be there forever, simply because it’s too much trouble to tear it down. Abominations, I can’t stress enough, are built to last.
Monday, September 4th 2006
why Jeff Jacoby is a svelte* schlub
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 9:05 am in [ MBTA -
fear & loathing in Boston -
Boston -
cycling in Boston -
alternative transportation ]
I generally skip Jeff Jacoby’s column in the Globe, but
this rant about “car-haters and PC nannies” caught my eye yesterday. I’m surprised he left out Al Qaeda, since it’s common knowledge that all bicyclists belong to the terrorist organization. Anyway, I just had to pass it on to anyone who missed it:
“Traffic congestion is choking our cities, hurting our economy, and reducing our quality of life,” begins a new report from the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. Rush-hour gridlock paralyzes 39,500 lane-miles of roadway each year, eating up $63 billion in lost time and fuel. But much worse is to come.
By 2030, the number of severely congested lane-miles will reach nearly 60,000 per year, an increase of more than 50 percent. Commuters in the largest metropolitan areas will spend 65 percent more time in traffic than they do now . Within 25 years, at least a dozen major cities will be choked with travel delays worse than in today’s Los Angeles, whose notorious congestion is the worst in America.
The solution is the obvious one: Build more highways, and manage them more intelligently. “The old canard ‘we can’t build our way out of congestion’ is not true,” the authors write.
They estimate that 104,000 new lane-miles will be needed by 2030, at a cost of about $21 billion a year, much of which could be raised through electronic tolling. The return on that investment would be a stunning 7.7 billion fewer hours spent in traffic each year, along with all the wealth and freedom those time savings would generate.
All this is heresy, of course, to the car-haters and PC nannies who are forever lecturing us to quit driving and use mass transit. But we are overwhelmingly a nation of drivers; the real “mass transit” is the traffic on our highways. If the highways don’t grow to keep up with that traffic, the strangulating misery of gridlock will only get worse.
I am convinced that Jacoby, like his shiksa counterpart Ann Coulter, is actually a radical leftwinger, mercilessly parodying the unyielding idiocy of the right week after week in his column. I mean, he can’t be for real.
*Originally “a fat schlub,” my fact-checker, Dani B., assures me Mr. Jacoby actually has a pretty tricky figure (see comment #2 to this post).
Sunday, September 3rd 2006
more on biking in Boston…
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 10:53 am in [ Boston -
cycling in Boston -
alternative transportation ]
…in the Sunday Globe HERE.
Thursday, August 31st 2006
Mike and Markus’s Excellent Adventure
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 9:15 am in [ MBTA -
city life -
Boston -
AFC ]
I took a long walk yesterday with my friend Markus from Tübingen, Germany, who is in town to get his MA in English. He had been staying in the YWCA (he claims not to have known what the “W” stood for) while looking for an apartment. He found one, but when we met at Back Bay Station yesterday he said he had to go back to the YWCA to leave his phone number for someone there. So we headed in that direction.
When we got there I waited outside on the corner of Berkeley and Appleton for him. I’ve been over there countless times through the years, but it’s really not until you find yourself just standing there looking around that you see things. And I’d just never really had occasion to stand around on that particular corner before. So when I looked across the street and saw this:

I was sort of surprised. Was it once a synagogue? When I got home I did a little research. The only mention I could find online was a brief one from The Boston Walks “Jewish Friendship Trail” site, that listed Berkeley and Appleton as stop #4, and said of the intersection simply:
“…near the corner of Berkeley and Appleton Streets, we can glimpse a vivid reason why Jews felt comfortable occupying several communal buildings at this intersection. Here, in the first floor of the Theodore Parker meeting house, Adath Israel ran its Sunday school beginning in 1875.”
If this is the Theodore Parker House–and it may or may not be–I don’t know why it would have a Star of David figuring prominently in the design, since Parker was not a Jew. He was an abolitionist, transcendentalist, deposed Unitarian minister (you know he was radical if he got chucked out of the Unitarian Church), and finally head of the Twenty-eighth Congregational Society of Boston, whose Appleton Street Chapel was built at the corner of Berkeley and Appleton Streets around the time the building in the picture was.
So, my curiosity is piqued. If anyone knows anything about any of this, give me a shout.
Marcus joined me after a few minutes’ musing on the street corner there, and we headed to Back Bay, eventually making our way through the public garden, for a stroll on Beacon Hill, where I noticed this in passing:

A found phallus. Just thought I’d share.
We walked from there to the Charles and found a park bench, and Markus ate a plum. And we watched the sky:

Then we decided to go to Cambridge. So we walked to the Charles/MGH T station. It has yet to be automated, and here, again, the T’s utter incompetence in this process was on glorious display. We could not use our Charlie Tickets, of course, and found ourselves scrambling to come up with change. Markus got his token, and then I handed the man in the token booth two dollar bills–I am absolutely sure of it–and asked for “one, please.” I got two tokens, and fifty cents back. For some reason. I didn’t complain. Seventy-five cents a trip seems totally reasonable to me. I think that’s about what the T’s worth these days. I felt somewhat, slightly–but only slightly–compensated for all the inconveniences. It could be a secret policy of theirs, to quell the fury of the masses with little random giveaways like this, making you sort of complicit in the conspiracy. I mean, you sort of think, OK, the incompetence is bearable if I get a free ride out of it occasionally.
In Cambridge we walked around Harvard Yard. I showed Markus a swarm of tourists who had come all the way from Southeast Asia to polish John Harvard’s shoe, even though it’s not really John Harvard. I asked him if he wanted to do it, too, and he said he would pass.
We had a quick bite to eat at the Friendly EATING PLACE on Mass Ave at Dana Street (roughly midway between Harvard and Central Squares). It’s been there forever, and as far as I have ever been able to tell, it’s no friendlier than any other EATING PLACE in the neighborhood, though no less friendly on the whole, either. The sign facing Dana Street is the most strictly accurate, reading simply “EATING PLACE.” Although people also talk and laugh and drink and watch the TV in the corner, and day-dream, and worry, and look at passersby through the window. But if you want to be all functional about it, I suppose it is an “eating place” first, and an all-those-other-things place second. The eats are, however, so-so at best.
So, we hopped back on the T at Central Square, where, of course, we could not use our tokens, and Markus’s Charlie Ticket was out of funds, and the train was coming, and I ran my ticket through, and next thing I know, Markus jumps through with me. No buzzers buzzed, no red lights flashed, and no one was in the station to do anything about it if they had. This was my first fare evasion experience (albeit a passive one) with the new automated system, and to be perfectly honest, it was painless.
Not that I myself would actively evade paying my fare, but I’m not one of those people who a bag of money drops out of the sky and lands on their heads and they go turn it into the authorities, either. You know, if the universe offers you a free ride, take it. It’ll all even out in the end. I’ve lost plenty of money feeding the T’s old token vending machines, and if the gods of the underground are seeing fit to pay me back a bit at the moment who am I to question their wisdom? Am I gonna spit in the eye of Providence?
Tuesday, August 29th 2006
making Boston more bearable, one bear on a bike at a time
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 5:36 am in [ city life -
Boston -
alternative transportation ]
Have you seen him yet?
My friend Tony spotted him over the weekend, on Mass Ave., if I’m not mistaken. And then, this evening as I was riding home, we crossed paths on Tremont Street.
He’s a skinny, scrappy old thing. Looks like he’s seen some tough times. But that’s life in the city, as my ma used to say, especially for a bear. But despite the patch of mange on his tattered old hide, and his worn old visage with its faded fur and sad, goofy smile, he’s ever so friendly, waving at everyone as he rides by. And waving in a nice way. He doesn’t freakin’ QUACK-QUACK at you, all aggressively, like you’re the butt of his joke. Just a neighborly little wave as he passes. Which is why people wave back.
He doesn’t stand for anything in particular. He’s not advertising anything that I can see. He’s just a bear on a bike. Which is enough, when you think about it.
We need to fix him up with a foxy, cycling she-bear, so they can get busy making baby bears. Because Boston most definitely needs more bears on bikes.
Sunday, August 27th 2006
bicyclists: scourge of the roads?
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 8:36 am in [ fear & loathing in Boston -
city life -
Boston -
cycling in Boston -
alternative transportation ]
Last week there was a firestorm over cycling in the city on the pages of The Globe. It was ignited by a letter to the editor from a certain Marika Plater, which is worth quoting in its entirety:
THIS IS to the man in the blue Volkswagen who screamed at me, with an obscenity, to get on the sidewalk when I was riding my bicycle on Memorial Drive last week. Actually, this is to all of the Boston drivers who have honked at me while I’m biking and following the traffic laws; who have given me the finger, cut me off, splashed puddle water all over me, and squeezed me to the curb.
I want to tell Boston drivers that they do not own the road. Bicycles belong on Boston streets as much as cars do. Especially because the number of bikers will rise as skyrocketing gas prices and heightened environmental concern cause people to seek new forms of transportation, drivers need to learn how to be respectful of bicyclists and to share the road.
So here’s an abbreviated list of Massachusetts bicyclist rules of the road:
Bicycles are allowed on all roads, unless there’s a sign that says they are prohibited.
Riding bicycles on sidewalks is discouraged in general and is illegal in Somerville and parts of Cambridge.
Bicyclists must obey traffic laws.
Bicyclists should use hand signals when turning.
Bicyclists should stay at the edge of the right hand lane when there is not a bike lane, unless making a left turn, in which case they can use the left lane.
Boston drivers: Bicycles have the legal right to share the road with cars . Please watch out for bicyclists and remember that we are not protected by pounds of steel as you are . Please be considerate rather than cruel when you encounter us on the road, and please look out your window before opening your car door. Biking in Boston does not have to be as stressful as it is .
Her rant elicited the obligatory counter-rant from a certain David McCaffrey of Waltham:
MARIKA PLATER must have a death wish (”Bicyclists belong on the roads, too,” letter, Aug. 17). No one in their right mind would ride a bicycle on Memorial Drive. Hundreds of bicyclists use the sidewalk along the Charles River daily. Is Plater so obtuse that she would risk her life because there is no road sign prohibiting bicycles?
She gives a list of bicycle rules. It’s more of a wish list. Not only do bicyclists disobey the rules, their aggressive actions are a real threat to pedestrians. While driving on Mass. Ave. in Cambridge recently, I observed a bicyclist swerving in and out of traffic at high speed. When he came to the red light, he blew right through, narrowly missing an elderly woman. I observed four more bicyclists blow through the same red light.
Why do so many bicyclists disregard the rules of the road? Probably because they are unaccountable. They need no license plate, registration, inspection, or insurance. They don’t even pay an excise tax , which helps pay for the roads they use.
The next time Marika Plater wants to vent, she should look to her fellow bicyclists.
Ouch.
People. First of all, calm down. There are no innocents in the war of all against all going on on Boston’s mean streets, so let’s not pretend we’re not all at fault here.
Secondly, one of the reasons cyclists behave the way they do is that as stressful as driving is in Boston, cycling is a hundred times more stressful. It takes a lot less to get yourself seriously injured or killed on a bike than it does in a car. because many Boston streets are not made with cyclists in mind, you have to develop some aggressive strategies to get from point A to point B. Until cycling is considered a serious transportation alternative, you will have guerrilla cyclists on the streets.
Which doesn’t entirely excuse bad behavior on the part of cyclists. And I have seen cyclists behaving very badly indeed–usually, but not always, those loathsome bike couriers, biking’s version of cabbies and truck drivers. They think because they do it for a living it gives them the right to dress and behave badly. It doesn’t.
I myself have rarely encountered any real trouble with motorists, to tell the truth. You do have to keep a look-out for motorists and pedestrians, but that’s just cycling in the city. I have not been honked at, given the finger, cut off, splashed or squeezed to the curb. Really. And I ride along Mass Ave for a good portion of my commute.
I do avoid traffic, and choose my routes carefully, though. I’m not biking to prove a point, I’m biking to get from point A to point B. And I give myself enough time to deal with unanticipated delays. So the main reason I have not encountered too much trouble on the road is that I anticipate it, and take measures to minimize the probability of it.
So it’s no tribute to Boston’s drivers, God knows. They have a real problem signaling turns. They routinely blow through red lights. And many have anger management issues. Instead of putting all the blame on cyclists, motorists like McCaffrey here should get out of their cars, hop on a bike, and ride through the streets every once in a while–not Memorial Drive, of course (he’s right that Plater’s a dork to do this).
What he would find is that all those things that annoy him about other drivers when he’s in a car, are multiplied and amplified to the nth degree on a bike. And they’re no longer merely annoyances that he can blare his horn at. They can be downright life-threatening when you’re riding a bike.
Not asking for sympathy, here, just telling it like it is.
And personally, I don’t object to a certification course for cyclists. In fact, there are courses on urban cycling offered by MassBike. The idea of an excise tax for cyclists, whose lightweight vehicles have hardly any impact on roads, and who in many parts of the city don’t have lanes of their own, is a little outlandish, however.
Cycling should be encouraged, and every measure taken to ensure it’s safe in the city. That means cyclists should learn the rules and the necessary skills, and that the city should work to build a cycling infrastructure that would minimize dangers of mixing with motor traffic. And motorists should get out of their cars on occasion and ride in the city, as well. They might learn a thing or two, and maybe, just maybe, they’d find a better way to get from point A to point B in the process.
Friday, August 25th 2006
found vistas #1
posted by Mike Mennonno @ 7:48 am in [ MBTA -
Boston -
found vistas ]

These two shots were taken from Kingston St., between Bedford and Summer (scroll down for detailed directions–the red “x” marks the spot). The first is looking due west, the second looking southeast. I was right across the street from The Good Life, which is The Place for martinis, apparently, in case you didn’t know. I’m not gonna get into the whole “what is a martini?” debate right now, though. It’s too early in the morning, and I’ve only had three martinis so far. (I need at least five-and-a-half to get philosophical.)
The building in which The Good Life finds itself is utterly charming, by the way:

The closest T station is Downtown Crossing (Red Line), which is .17 miles away. To get here from there, walk approximately 1 block SE on Summer St., turn right on Kingston St., walk a short distance SW on Kingston St., and look up.

Just so you’re clear on this, I consider a “found vista” in the city that open space framed by the structures. One thing I like about Boston–that you can really see in the second shot above, is how unexpectedly, and from just one certain angle on the ground, lines converge.
In that picture–looking SE–what is pleasing, mysterious, titillating even, is the vanishing point between the buildings. Their parallel lines seem to converge in that sliver of open space. There is freedom there, beyond—but it opens up only for a moment. Take two steps in any direction, and it’s gone. Like the shadow of a thought, or the hint of a possibility.
If you’ve discovered a secret vista, send it to me HERE.