To The Editor:

I’m writing regarding your story, “Chiofaro Lays Out 6-Yr Harbor Garage Timeline” in the April 20, 2009, edition.

Six years? What’s up with that? At the moment, I’m not even thinking about the size, shape, or proposed uses of the Harbor Garage project presented to the BRA. I’m focused on how casually a six-year timeline was announced, and on how usual the idea of taking six years to build a single project seems to have become.

Huh? In March 1930, construction began on the Empire State Building. Fourteen months later, the building opened for occupancy.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s pretty close to 80 years ago, long before most of the equipment used in construction today was even invented. Back then, much of the construction on the Empire State Building was by hand.

So why, in 2009, is it acceptable for a project to take four times longer to complete than the Empire State Building? Imagine if the Filenes project had been on the Empire State Building’s timeline. Do you suppose it could have been substantially complete, if not occupied, before the bottom fell out of the financial market?

While we’re thinking about it, imagine if the Copley and Arlington T projects were on the Empire State Building’s timeline instead of the “a-project-takes-as-long-to-complete-as-the-time-available” timetable.

Even if the neighbors, the city, and the bankers love a project, how can it be possible that it’s acceptable for a building to be under construction for six years? I look forward to lively discussion on this question, if not an interesting B&T article on the subject.

Tommye-K. Mayer

Boston