Columbus Center: RIP

[Suffolk 83]

Lol Tobes knows its not him....

[KentXie]

Yes, it is. Here’s why. In 2003, the developers, and a Certified Public Accountant hired by the City, both confirmed in writing that the entire project was 100% privately funded, and totally subsidy-free. Then in 2006, the developers admitted that they’d planned to have the public pay their costs and profits “from the get-go” (in 1996) as confirmed by spokesman Alan Eisner in (“Columbus Center wins tax credits worth millions”, Boston Globe, 30 June 2006).

So, yes, it is surprising that developers who propose their project as subsidy-free later admit that they actually planned for 13 years to use as many subsidies as possible.


What do you expect? If CalPERS admitted earlier that they needed subsidies due to rising construction cost, NIMBYs and many anti-CC members will jumped the instant that it is made public and criticize it. The project will be dead. It's not whether they lied or not, it's the fact that honesty leads them no where either. Ned, would you believe that CC could have a higher chance to be built had they admit it earlier. Of course not. It is a lose, lose situation. People can not predict the future. Did you think CalPERs would have needed subsidies had the economy not be in such a sad state?

New regulations for an existing factory are completely different from existing regulations (Turnpike Master Plan) for a future proposal (Columbus Center). Your analogy would be valid only if completed projects were required to comply with new master plans that get written after the projects get built.

Again you missed my point. Due to rising construction cost and collapse of the housing market, profit has definitely dropped for the developers. It is not surprising if it will take CalPERs many additional years than originally planned for them to make profit on this huge investment. Thus my analogy was meant to show the loss of production due to changes (in this case the economy).

The Turnpike Master Plan was a fact long before any Columbus Center proposals were published, so the developers were never forced to propose, and they were never “forced to give up” anything. They chose, voluntarily, to publish proposals in which they claimed to fully comply with the pre-existing Master Plan, including its requirements for public open space, and its limits on height.

They gave up nothing, and their proposals promised that they wouldn’t need to give up anything.

Maybe force is too strong a word. But aren't requirements another way of saying that "developers must (i.e. forced) to comply with the existing rule." If CalPERS is a profit maximizing company, then they could have proposed a 70 story building with no park space to maximize profit in the area. The fact is that they must give up the potential profit that can be made in the area whether they do it voluntarily or not...unless you live in cities like Dallas and Houston where height limits can be lifted without any problems. Add a weakening economy, high risk of low returns, and strong opposition and you get a project that needs help in order to be built.

[nm88]

Guys, this is a public forum. You don't like a thread, don't read. Go to the next thread. Spare us all the negativity.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . It's not whether they lied or not, it's the fact that honesty leads them no where either.
There’s a keen distinction between the former owners and the current owners. The former owners submitted a subsidy-free proposal, knowing they would seek as many subsidies as possible later, when they hoped no one would notice. Then they sold their bait-and-switch business plan to CalPERS-CUIP. The 4-year storm of opposition from citizens, community groups, legislators, state agencies, and other towns arose from that bait-and-switch dishonesty more than from any other problem. Had the owners admitted to using subsidies from the beginning, the opposition generated by their dishonesty could never have occurred.

. . . Did you think CalPERs would have needed subsidies had the economy not be in such a sad state? . . . Due to rising construction cost and collapse of the housing market, profit has definitely dropped for the developers.

• The owners themselves publicly confirmed that costs, revenues, and profits rise and fall — together — with the economy, so that when housing values fall, costs decrease too, and when costs rise, housing values do, too.
• The owners themselves and a City-engaged Certified Public Accountant publicly confirmed that the proposal was both subsidy-free and profitable.

I didn’t create either of the above statements; the owners themselves confirmed that rising and falling economies would never be a problem, and that no subsidies would ever be needed.

The Turnpike Master Plan recognizes that economies fluctuate, and it addresses what should happen when economies sour:

“Ideally, air rights development should occur during strong economies that will support the best quality projects. A strong economy offers an opportunity to achieve projects that are both appropriate in scale and character and are also financially feasible. These Guidelines should not be compromised in response to weak real estate conditions.” (Turnpike Master Plan, MTA and BRA, 28 June 2000, page 35 of 101.)

. . . If CalPERS is a profit maximizing company, then they could have proposed a 70 story building with no park space to maximize profit in the area.
No, neither CalPERS nor any other developer can ever propose that, because the Turnpike Master Plan (published 28 June 2000, adopted 21 December 2000) requires that every proposal include a 2-acre, contiguous park on Parcel 18 whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet.

. . . Add . . . strong opposition and you get a project that needs help in order to be built.
Public opposition does not generate a need for subsidies; in fact, opposition diminishes the chance of subsidies. On the other hand, when proposals are Master-Plan-compliant, opposition is lower, and subsidies are more likely.

[Ned Flaherty]

Suffolk83 now wants to read only news, with nothing repeated. And BostonObserver now wants to end discussions on this thread, with people discussing facts privately and then posting only their “results.” But news articles alone aren’t very useful if they only repeat what the newspapers say, and conclusions aren’t very useful unless they include the debates about the underlying facts.

As others chime in on how to make this thread more valuable, it’s important to remember that MTA owns 70 parcels totaling 77 acres of air rights in urban Boston, and many of the principles and issues seen in this thread will recur citywide for decades to come.

For example, the One Kenmore team resumed writing their air rights proposal (3 acres, 1.4 million s.f.) on 27 March, and it will be published soon.

[KentXie]

No, neither CalPERS nor any other developer can ever propose that, because the Turnpike Master Plan (published 28 June 2000, adopted 21 December 2000) requires that every proposal include a 2-acre, contiguous park on Parcel 18 whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet.


Again you misread my reply. Reread that section again and you find out that I said the owners must comply, regardless of whether they voluntarily submit plans within the requirement or not, with the Turnpike Master Plan and thus are "forced" to give up potential profit that could be gained by building higher without a park.

On another point, didn't CC's original plan include two towers instead of one?

[KentXie]

• The owners themselves publicly confirmed that costs, revenues, and profits rise and fall — together — with the economy, so that when housing values fall, costs decrease too, and when costs rise, housing values do, too.
• The owners themselves and a City-engaged Certified Public Accountant publicly confirmed that the proposal was both subsidy-free and profitable.

I didn’t create either of the above statements; the owners themselves confirmed that rising and falling economies would never be a problem, and that no subsidies would ever be needed.

Sometimes, I wonder if you even read my replies carefully. I know the the owners themselves stated that they did not needed subsidies. The point I'm trying to make is that had CC ever knew the economy were going to turn so sour so quickly and asked for subsidies from the start, they would not have received it and opposition to the project would have also grown at the point and thus no matter what they do in that current situation, they will lose. The severity of the economic downturn could have also played a role as they might not have expected to have the housing market plummet this much or the construction cost to rise so quickly in the recent years.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Owners . . . are "forced" to give up potential profit that could be gained by building higher without a park.
It’s true that no owner will ever realize the profit from a high tower built without any park. But that potential profit which you imagine from that design does not even exist at this property, because it is forbidden by the Turnpike Master Plan. Since it doesn’t exist in the first place, no one can claim they were forced “to give it up.”

. . . On another point, didn't CC's original plan include two towers instead of one?
The 9 March 2001 proposal shows two skyscrapers: 38 stories on Parcel 16, and 33 stories on Parcel 17. The project was re-proposed multiple times from 2001 through 2005. The MTA 99-year lease signed 2 May 2006 says “approximately 35 floors” on Parcel 16, and “approximately 11 floors” on Parcel 17. Although the height was reduced, the project’s gross square footage grew by 152,800 (11%), from 1,338,000 in 2001 to 1,490,800 in 2006.

[Wocket]

You repeat your “widespread support” mantra almost every time you post, but after excluding the people, organizations, and politicians who were offered some cash and prizes (or still hope to be offered some), and after excluding certain members of this forum, all that’s left is widespread opposition:

■ The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Banker & Tradesman, South End News, and Boston Business Journal have all run editorials and/or columnist articles that are highly critical of the proposal.


What do you think this could possibly prove?

Could you detail for us, Ned, how many negative opinion pieces (not written by you, of course) and pieces in favor in each of the papers above? We all (including Winn) know you keep a clip book.

[kz1000ps]

a bit old, but I think it's worth posting..

Night Work Continues at Columbus Center

May 3, 2008
by Alison Lapp
The Boston Courant

A delay on the construction of the proposed Columbus Center would not give neighbors relief from the inconveniences of an active worksite, according to the developers.

An April 18 posting on the project's website states that "construction will proceed at a reduced level until full scale construction resumes," including night work occurring "intermittently on the Turnpike for the next 24 months."

The construction will happen despite the fact that WinnDevelopment, the developer of the proposed seven-acre project that would straddle the Mass Pike from Clarendon Street to Tremont Street, asked the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) for a continuance on such labor in March.

Turnpike spokesman Mac Daniel confirmed that the authority is negotiating the terms of the continuance with the developers. The MTA has said it will not grant the postponement unless developers secure the site, which they have committed to do.

"To minimize inconvenience to the neighborhood during this period, we'll be restoring parking and sidewalks," said WinnDevelopment spokesperson Alan Eisner.

The company requested the delay after the Commonwealth failed to approve $10 million in grants that developers were expecting.

The loss of the state money was the latest setback in a series of harships for the proposed condominium, hotel and retail project, which lost a major financier last year.

The $800 million complex, more than a decade in the making, has yet to find a new lender in today's depressed real estate market. Mayor Thomas Menino has said Gov. Deval Patrick indicated in a private conversation that he could restore state funding if developers secure the rest of their financing.

While looking for a backer, developers will slow construction, but, "We're not going to abandon the site because of the ability to potentially restate it," Eisner said.

The purpose of the work will be to "maintain the integrity of the site for future construction," he said, though could not describe the specific tasks engineers will need to perform.

Steps will "for sure" be taken to reduce disturbances from night work, he said, adding that he was uncertain of how that alleviation would be accomplished.

Negotiations for a new air rights lease from the MTA are ongoing, he said, stressing that developers still hope to see the project through to completion.

"We'll have a continuance on our current lease for 18 months, during which time we are going to rethink our capital structure with an eye towards continuing the project," Eisner said, "which will be a function of market conditions and the ability to receive funds that have already been committed at the state level for the project."

[JimboJones]

Er, the South End News has also published editorials and/or columns in SUPPORT of the project, Mr Flaherty.

And I would say the actual articles in that paper have taken an even-handed and un-opinionated view of the development.

[tobyjug]

Lol Tobes knows its not him....

Thanks! But I can get carried away. Ned does make some good points, and my "trial by fire" method at testing them can be taxing to others, I'm sure. I've pretty much reached my endpoint with the previous suggestion I made to Ned. With the exception of one last post on this thread (to follow shortly), I'll wait for some news before posting again.

[tobyjug]

Why don't you guys get together, hash this out and then post the results. You have made this thread completely useless. You're being ignorant and selfish. ENOUGH

B.O.,
My apologies. I can get passionate in trying to draw out "the truth", what ever that might be on any given day. I accept that I am a difficult person.
But, B.O., having read all of your comment history, you ought to consider contributing news, or photography, or something, anything, rather than treating this like a newspaper substitute. Until you do something "useful", you aren't in a position to judge the efforts of others as "useless". You might not like Ned, you might not like me, but we CONTRIBUTE more than just sniping. And everyone ought to thank Ned for bringing some action to a thread that would be dead, dead, dead, without Ned, Ned, Ned. Come now, don't alot of you look forward to seeing what provocation he will launch next?
Toby

[statler]

Boston Herald
Clarendon work leaves Columbus Center in dust
By Scott Van Voorhis

Call it a tale of two towers.

Boston’s newest luxury tower, the Clarendon, is ramping up its marketing campaign this week as the frame of the 33-story tower slowly takes shape on the Back Bay skyline.

But a few blocks away, a dusty and now largely vacant construction site by the side of the Massachusetts Turnpike is the only evidence of the $800 million Columbus Center. Amid a tough economy and the loss of a financial backer, construction there has largely ground to a halt.

However, to state Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay) the dramatically different outcomes are no accident.

While planning on Columbus Center began in 2000, roughly two years before the Clarendon was first proposed, Columbus Center developers Roger Cassin and Arthur Winn became embroiled in a contentious, years-long battle with neighborhood groups about the size and height of the 400-foot project.

By contrast, the development team behind the Clarendon, headed by New York luxury condo builder Ken Himmel, cultivated a more harmonious working relationship with its neighbors. After initially floating plans for a 38-story tower, the developers slashed several stories off the blueprints.

The project sailed through the city permitting process. It moved into contruction last year and will open by early 2010.

So far, deposits have been taken on 11 of the project’s 103 condos, according to Bruce Beal Sr., a member of the development team.

“They didn’t declare war on the community with a bad project,” Walz said. “They did what developers should do. They engaged the community in a conversation and addressed the community’s concerns as much as they could.”

Alan Eisner, a spokesman for Columbus Center, rejected such comparisons.

Columbus Center is a much more complex proposal that involves building on a deck over the Pike. As for working with the community, Eisner said the developers had pledged tens of millions for various community benefits.

“We are talking apples and oranges here,” Eisner said.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1093861

The last line completely invalidated the entire point of the article. :confused:

[ngb_anim8]

Also, Walz alluding to CC as a "bad project" is ridiculous. It seems to me that with the exception of Marty and her posse, most people think CC would be great for the economy and the quality of life in that area of the city. Declaring war...what a joke.

[sidewalks]

Regarding the level of support for Columbus Center in the South End...

Time and again, Ned contends that there is no popular support for the Columbus Center project. In my travels and conversations with people who live in and around the South End, I have yet to encounter anyone who opposes the project. That is not to say that some of my Chandler Street neighhbors don't oppose the project. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't like the proposal. But Ned's contention that there is a tiny cabal of cheerleaders who stand to profit from this project is simply false.

I've stated this before, but I feel compelled to repeat myself as Ned insists on trotting out the same inaccurate statements. It reminds me of the old Iraq-9/11 connection that the Bush administration shilled to the public in the run up to the war. It was never true, but if you say it often enough and with enough confidence, people eventually start to believe it's true.

[Ned Flaherty]

What do you think this could possibly prove?

Publishers and editors chose and approved articles highly critical of the Columbus Center proposal in the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Banker & Tradesman, South End News, and Boston Business Journal. That opposition on newspaper editorial pages — combined with opposition by state legislators, at state agencies, by city councilors, from community groups, and from hundreds of individual citizens — proves that the “widespread support” you claimed doesn’t exist. After subtracting the people, organizations, and politicians who were offered some cash and prizes (or still hope to be offered some) in exchange, there is no public record showing significant public support.

Could you detail for us, Ned, how many negative opinion pieces . . . and pieces in favor in each of the papers above?

There is no such thing as a categorically “negative” or “positive” opinion piece about Columbus Center, because the negative/positive continuum is always a judgment in the eye of the beholder. For example, every piece mentioning another public subsidy is viewed by the project owners as positive news, but by citizens and their legislators as negative news. So no, the pieces can’t be counted that way.

It is possible to count pieces as “endorsing” versus “opposing”, but that, too, misses the point, because a mere tally is not very informative. What is relevant is: when each opposing piece runs, which publication runs it, and what it actually says.

We all (including Winn) know you keep a clip book.

You don’t explain who you mean by “we all.” You don’t explain how it is that those people authorized you to speak for whatever it is that they know. You don’t explain how it is that you know what employees at Winn Development know.

To know what Winn knows you must already be inside the firm, or its team, or have pretty deep corporate access there, and so you already know that much of the $110 million that the owners said they spent already was for four public relations firms over 13 years. In that case, the best way for you to answer your own question about the coverage is for you to get Winn’s answer yourself, and post it here for everyone else’s benefit. (No reason for me to reinvent the wheel when you can get it straight from that horses’s mouth.)

Especially revealing is the total of un-fact-checked, un-verified opinion pieces that Winn’s public relations firms got published as “news” but which were proven false in other coverage and also in their own public subsidy applications. Winn tracks such coverage closely because they are invoiced for it, it is expensive, and it is part of their periodic reports to the managers at CalPERS-CUIP-MURC.

Since you know what Winn knows about what I know, this is easy for you to get.

[Ned Flaherty]

Several forum members are still wondering whether PM (particulate matter) air pollution is harmful, whether prior studies were peer reviewed, and whether City officials are requiring the Commonwealth to report the I-90 illness and death rates. Here are the answers.

Yes, it’s harmful. • Estimated death rates from exposure to particulate matter were tripled last week by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resources Board (CA-EPA-CARB). CARB reviewed twelve of the most recent studies showing that exposure to particulate matter can cause premature death.

Based upon the most recent scientific literature, CARB estimates that in California alone, 14,000 - 24,000 people die prematurely each year from exposure to diesel particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. More research is needed to correlate the number of premature deaths to various particle sizes classified as regular, fine, and ultrafine, but existing studies generally indicate that the smaller the particle size the greater the public health risk. Over 1,000 research studies are now being published each year on this subject.

Yes, there were peer reviews. • The methodology that CARB staff uses to quantify premature death and other health impacts from PM exposure is based on a peer-reviewed methodology developed in 2004-05 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their risk assessments. After studying eleven of the thousands of research projects on particulate matter, CARB based its approach on a peer-reviewed methodology developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This methodology is regularly updated by CARB staff as new epidemiological and related studies are published.

The methodologies and results were endorsed by CARB’s scientific advisors: Dr. Jonathan Levy (Harvard University), Dr. Bart Ostro (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), and Dr. Arden Pope (Brigham Young University). The research underwent an external peer review by experts selected through a process involving the University of California at Berkeley, Institute of the Environment.

The results of the peer review process are contained in the draft report, “Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposures to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California” (CARB, 22 May 2008). The final report is scheduled for August.

Yes, the City of Boston is requiring the Commonwealth to report illness and death rates. • The illness and death rates along Boston’s I-90 transportation corridor caused by regular, fine, and ultrafine particle sizes will be part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report now being jointly written by MTA and Meredith Management for their One Kenmore air rights proposal.

CARB Publications
• Press release: www.ARB.CA.gov/NewsRel/nr052208.htm
• Agency plans: www.ARB.CA.gov/Research/Health/pm-mort/pm-mort.htm
• Draft report: www.ARB.CA.gov/Research/Health/pm-mort/pm-mortdraft.pdf

[KentXie]

Oh my god Ned, why are you reviving this thread? There aren't any new news. It seems like you are just trying to pick a fight now. Wait until something new pops up.

[Ned Flaherty]

... In my travels and conversations with people who live in and around the South End, I have yet to encounter anyone who opposes the project.

Hundreds of South Enders and other Bostonians are on record opposing the prior and current proposals. Detailed issues and the identities of each person and organization are shown in the hundreds of opposition testimonials given at public meetings 2001-2003, and the hundreds of letters filed at government agencies 2001-2008.

If you never read those testimonies and letters, reading them now would identify the issues and the people you say you can not find on your own. If you did read them before, but simply forgot, then re-reading them now would refresh your memory.

But please do not say you “have not encountered” anyone opposing the project, when hundreds of examples have been public record for most of the decade.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . why are you reviving this thread?
The forum isn’t a news re-print service; it’s a discussion board. Forum members aren’t restricted to speaking only when a newspaper article appears. Wocket asked me questions about media, so I replied. And several forum members asked for updates about particulate matter, so I provided those.

. . . There aren't any new news. . . Wait until something new pops up.
That’s untrue. Plenty of significant news occurred just last week:
(1) Estimated annual death rates from particulate matter were tripled by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resources Board (CA-EPA-CARB).
(2) CARB announced the scientific peer reviews that other forum members wanted.
(3) The City asked the Commonwealth to publish the particulate matter information that was omitted from — but should have been included in — the Columbus Center proposal.

[stellarfun]

Ned, I read the reports of the California assessment last week; these reports dealt with fine particulates, not ultrafine particles (UFPs), the latter being the subject of your crusade to create toxic zones along the Mass Pike.

There are existing standards, monitoring, and regulation of fine particulates. That is not the case for UFP.

You either misread reports or subvert them for your own purpose.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . these [California] reports dealt with fine particulates, not ultrafine particles (UFPs). . . There are existing standards, monitoring, and regulation of fine particulates. That is not the case for UFP.

For people who work and live along transportation corridors, dangerous particulate matter comes in three sizes: regular, fine, and ultrafine. Each has its own set of concerns.

• For regular and fine particles, the existing federal standards are regional in nature and thus ignore the harm within a few blocks of corridors like I-93 and I-90.
• For ultrafine particles, the inevitable federal standards are too little, too late for thousands of people affected by UFP-related illness and premature fatality.

The fact that last week’s tripling of annual estimated deaths was related to fine instead of ultrafine particulates doesn’t reduce the problems caused by inadequate standards or by missing standards.

. . . ultrafine particles (UFPs), the latter being the subject of your crusade to create toxic zones along the Mass Pike. . .

I am not working to “create toxic zones along Mass Pike” as you wrote. The toxicity already exists; I’m just working to ensure that it is:

(a) measured and identified so that people who work and live inside the toxic areas are told the health risks;
and
(b) remediated as promised to hermetically seal the tunnels, and clean the air below before exhausting it into the project above and the adjacent communities. CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC made that promise on 10 May 2006 in exchange for having City property taxes waived for 19 years.

[stellarfun]

For people who work and live along transportation corridors, dangerous particulate matter comes in three sizes: regular, fine, and ultrafine. Each has its own set of concerns.

• For regular and fine particles, the existing federal standards are regional in nature and thus ignore the harm within a few blocks of corridors like I-93 and I-90.
• For ultrafine particles, the inevitable federal standards are too little, too late for thousands of people affected by UFP-related illness and premature fatality.

The fact that last week’s tripling of annual estimated deaths was related to fine instead of ultrafine particulates doesn’t reduce the problems caused by inadequate standards or by missing standards.



I am not working to “create toxic zones along Mass Pike” as you wrote. The toxicity already exists; I’m just working to ensure that it is:

(a) measured and identified so that people who work and live inside the toxic areas are told the health risks;
and
(b) remediated as promised to hermetically seal the tunnels, and clean the air below before exhausting it into the project above and the adjacent communities. CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC made that promise on 10 May 2006 in exchange for having City property taxes waived for 19 years.

My goodness, where to start?

A.) there is no such term as a "regular" particulate

B.) thus, there is no standard for "regular" particulates (particles). There are two particulate standards, one is for PM10, the 10 being 10 micrometers, or particulates smaller than 1/2,540th of an inch, and one for PM2.5, the 2.5 being 2.5 micrometers, or roughly 1/10,000th of an inch.

C.) particulate standards are national standards.

D.) Nearly all the non-attainment areas for PM10 are out west (NYC being an exception).

The nearest non-attainment area for PM2.5 is the greater NYC metropolitan area. The entire state of Massachusetts attains the PM2.5 standard.
__________________________________

I am unaware of how one could hermetically seal a tunnel (that is in use).
Hermetically meaning air-tight.

If you are so concerned about the toxicity of being near a major urban highway, why do you not also call for the Columbus Center parks to be eliminated as dangerous to one's health?

[Ned Flaherty]

I agree that only two federal standards exist, PM-10 and PM-2.5, with nothing yet for ultrafine particulate matter (smaller than PM-2.5). But it is because both existing standards operate regionally instead of locally that neither one addresses the public health risks at short distances (about 1,640 feet).

I agree that no one has described how operational tunnels could be hermetically sealed. But California promised to do exactly that in exchange for a 19-year property tax break. Since hermetically sealed tunnels remain as impossible today as when California promised them over two years ago, that tax break was fraudulently obtained. Because the promised approach doesn’t exist, California is obligated to either implement an equivalent alternative, or else return the tax break.

If you are so concerned about the toxicity of being near a major urban highway, why do you not also call for the Columbus Center parks to be eliminated as dangerous to one's health?
Because eliminating open space does nothing to alleviate toxicity; it just relocates it from outdoors to indoors. On the other hand, cleansing the air before it leaves the railway/roadway transportation corridor would protect people working and living both inside the project itself and also within the adjacent communities.

[underground]

Because eliminating open space does nothing to alleviate toxicity; it just relocates it from outdoors to indoors. On the other hand, cleansing the air before it leaves the railway/roadway transportation corridor would protect people working and living both inside the project itself and also within the adjacent communities.
You could replace "open space" with "the Columbus Center" and make the same argument using the exact same logic.

[stellarfun]

I agree that only two federal standards exist, PM-10 and PM-2.5, with nothing yet for ultrafine particulate matter (smaller than PM-2.5). But it is because both existing standards operate regionally instead of locally that neither one addresses the public health risks at short distances (about 1,640 feet).

I agree that no one has described how operational tunnels could be hermetically sealed. But California promised to do exactly that in exchange for a 19-year property tax break. Since hermetically sealed tunnels remain as impossible today as when California promised them over two years ago, that tax break was fraudulently obtained. Because the promised approach doesn’t exist, California is obligated to either implement an equivalent alternative, or else return the tax break.


Because eliminating open space does nothing to alleviate toxicity; it just relocates it from outdoors to indoors. On the other hand, cleansing the air before it leaves the railway/roadway transportation corridor would protect people working and living both inside the project itself and also within the adjacent communities.


Ned, the air quality monitoring stations for particulates within the City of Boston are at City Square, Kenmore Square, Harrison Ave, and North St. I believe most are proximate to a major urban highway. The particulate standards are being met.

There are some things that are physically impossible to do: one being a common vulgarity, another being to hermetically seal an operating tunnel.

Nobody in a contract, lease, or other legally binding instrument would promise to do the impossible, no matter what you assert. To assert they so promised only further undercuts your credibility (which, IMO, has been steadily sinking the more that you post).

My comment on the open space, i.e., parks, was that by insisting that such features be built along a major urban highway, these then lie within your so-called toxic zone, and people who would use the parks would, by your construct, be exposing themselves to a significant health risk.

[Ned Flaherty]

You could replace "open space" with "the Columbus Center" and make the same argument using the exact same logic.

Not exactly. It’s true that eliminating open space from air rights development does nothing to alleviate the corridor’s inherent toxicity, and it’s also true that eliminating air rights development altogether does nothing to alleviate the corridor’s toxicity. But it’s not true that eliminating Columbus Center would do nothing to alleviate the toxicity.

Air rights development in general presents opportunities to alleviate the toxicity inherent in the corridor. The solution isn’t project-dependent or project-specific; it can be employed by any proposal over any of the 23 parcels covering any of the 44 acres.

So if California won’t or can’t deliver the “air-tight tunnels” it promised (or a functionally equivalent alternative), then other proponents can make use of the opportunity. But all competitors have been forever blocked since 1996, so California would have to officially step aside before anyone else could offer a solution.

[KentXie]

I agree that no one has described how operational tunnels could be hermetically sealed. But California promised to do exactly that in exchange for a 19-year property tax break. Since hermetically sealed tunnels remain as impossible today as when California promised them over two years ago, that tax break was fraudulently obtained. Because the promised approach doesn’t exist, California is obligated to either implement an equivalent alternative, or else return the tax break.

Where exactly did California promised to hermetically seal the tunnel? I want an article or a report pointing out that California used the exact words "hermetically sealed" the tunnel.

[Ned Flaherty]

Where exactly did California promised to hermetically seal the tunnel? I want an article or a report pointing out that California used the exact words "hermetically sealed" the tunnel.
On 5 May 2006, California pension plan representative Roger Cassin testified before Boston City Councilors:

“I tell you, all of the noise and fumes are sort of hermetically sealed below the site.”

Cassin made this statement as part of his public subsidy application testimony, in which California obtained waivers for state income taxes and also for 19 years of City property taxes.

City Hall videotaped his testimony before the Boston City Council Committee on Planning & Economic Development, in Docket 0524, on 5 May 2006. Cassin appears during minutes 8 through 23, and his “hermetically sealed” promise is around minute 14.

Visit www.CityOfBoston.gov/CityCouncil/cc_Video_Library.asp?id=197.

[pelhamhall]

Post #142 convinced me: I am now opposed to Columbus Center. Thank you for showing me the way, Ned, and I'm sorry it took so long.

Now we have to work on removing residents from all neighboring buildings who are living in these toxic zones. The UFPs that they are inhaling on a daily basis must slowly be making them all go crazy.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . The particulate standards are being met.

Yes, the current standards are being met, but neither standard addresses the public health risks at short distances because both standards operate regionally instead of locally. My point is not that current standards are not being met; my point is that the current standards do not address the risk.

. . .Nobody in a contract, lease, or other legally binding instrument would promise to do the impossible, no matter what you assert.

Companies routinely make promises that they can’t meet in legally binding instruments (contracts, leases, subsidy applications, etc.). Any experienced government procurement officer will tell you that. The practice is especially prevalent whenever firms think that their applications won’t be carefully checked. You can read such claims in Columbus Center’s own subsidy applications, and in the government agency reactions to them. Or just pull the videotape and watch California representative Roger Cassin tell his bold-faced, bald-faced lie in person to City Councilors.

. . . the open spaces . . . lie within your so-called toxic zone, and people who would use the parks would, by your construct, be exposing themselves to a significant health risk.

Yes, the open spaces are inside of the particulate matter toxic zones that encircle Columbus Center and spread into its adjacent communities. And yes, users of those open space would be exposed.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Now we have to work on removing residents from all neighboring buildings. . . The UFPs that they are inhaling on a daily basis must slowly be making them all go crazy.

The National Library of Medicine has thousands of studies explaining that the illnesses are not mental. They’re physical:

• 20% increase in all causes of mortality
• 50% increase in death from heart attack and lung cancer
• 44% more lung cancer deaths
• up to 50% more chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adult women
• chronic lung problems in children 10-18 years old
• up to 100% more childhood asthma, and more frequent exacerbation
• up to 100% more early cancers for children living their first 5 years near highways
• up to 400% more teens who never reach 80% of adult lung capacity
• very high association between UFPs and cardiovascular disease
• 36% increase in low birth-weights
• 27% increase in premature births
• 300% increase in infant cardiac birth defects

[stellarfun]

Yes, the current standards are being met, but neither standard addresses the public health risks at short distances because both standards operate regionally instead of locally. My point is not that current standards are not being met; my point is that the current standards do not address the risk.


Ned, you are confused. The standard is a national standard. Measurement of the attainment of a standard is done locally. For Boston, there are four monitoring stations for measuring the amount of particulates in the air. I realize that none are on Clarendon St., but at least three of the four stations are near a major urban highway (I don't know about North St.) with vehicle emissions streaming upward and outward.

Monitoring stations are typically located where concentrations of a pollutant are likely to be of concern. Hence, there is another air quality monitoring station on Long Island (in Boston Harbor) but it doesn't measure particulates. To the extent that a particular air pollutant is not considered a problem (potential or actual) in a geographic area, then it is not measured. In such circumstances, a local measurement can be extrapolated into a regional measurement, provided that the local site is where violations of a national standard are most likely to occur or attainment is likely to be difficult. If the state was monitoring particulates in downtown Scituate and not in Boston, you would have a legitimate beef.

______________________
With respect to Roger Cassin's "bold-faced, bald-faced lie" before the City Council, you have just done the same. The National Library of Medicine does not have thousands of studies on UFPs.

[kennedy]

Hey Ned, I'd gidadaheah if I were you. You're getting your ass kicked.

[Ron Newman]

If there's a monitoring station on North Street, it's probably for the Sumner or Callahan tunnel directly below.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . The standard is a national standard. Measurement of the attainment of a standard is done locally. For Boston, there are four monitoring stations for measuring the amount of particulates in the air. I realize that none are on Clarendon St., but at least three of the four stations are near a major urban highway (I don't know about North St.)

Yes, the current standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5 are national, and yes, their current measurements are locally collected, and then regionally extrapolated. The problem still is two-fold:

• There is no federal standard for ultrafine PM, so no one is yet measuring what is already known to be harmful.
• The local collection points for the PM-10 and PM-2.5 standards aren’t close enough to the toxic zones of the two corridors, so the extrapolations into regional estimates, while helpful, are inadequate.

. . . If the state was monitoring particulates in downtown Scituate and not in Boston, you would have a legitimate beef.

Yes, and by the same logic, if the state conducts no monitoring at all — as it does with ultrafine particulate matter — that also is cause for a legitimate complaint, since the un-measured PM (ultrafine) is more harmful than the measured PM (PM-10 and PM-2.5).

. . . With respect to Roger Cassin's "bold-faced, bald-faced lie" before the City Council, you have just done the same. The National Library of Medicine does not have thousands of studies on UFPs.

Roger Cassin told City Council his hermetically sealed tunnels would remove pollution from the community while asking that his property taxes be waived for 19 years. But he already knew that pollution from the tunnels below would be exhausted into his project (UFP pollution penetrates windows, doors, walls, and ceilings), and into the surrounding community above. He had already published his written proposal describing and illustrating the exhaust vents.

Cassin asked to be given millions of dollars in exchange for promising Councilors a solution that’s impossible. I neither asked for millions of public dollars, nor promised to do the impossible. So, no, I did not do what he did.

Your difficulty in locating nanoparticle research does not mean that it doesn’t exist, only that you aren’t there yet. The National Library of Medicine has 12,000 studies on nanoparticles and health, and 11,000 studies on particulate matter and health. There probably are another 5,000 related agency and aerosol science studies that are not included in PUBMED. Among the over 20,000 studies, there are probably several thousand about primary pollution including mobile, and probably several hundred good studies that are specific to mobile ultrafines and their near source gradients.

As the total number of peer-reviewed studies grew, the exact count became less important, and what became most important is this: public health officials know, and have known for years.

So, the question that pro-development apologists are left with is: Even if there were only a few studies showing the harmful effects of UFP, why build projects that harm the public health, when it’s possible to build ones that don’t?

[pelhamhall]

Ned - you're lucky that Mr. Cassin is such a gentleman, and has his hands full at the moment, because many other businessmen would sue you for defamation.

You really should measure your words, this is a public forum.

While I am fairly certain that very few people here take any of your ramblings seriously since you've been discredited so many times on so many details, but please be careful when you attack a person's character - that's different than attacking a development (we all attack developments all the time, that's what's fun about this board)

[stellarfun]

Yes, the current standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5 are national, and yes, their current measurements are locally collected, and then regionally extrapolated. The problem still is two-fold:

• There is no federal standard for ultrafine PM, so no one is yet measuring what is already known to be harmful.

Not true. Ultrafine is measured, but not systematically. As for being harmful, everything is harmful. Life and living is not risk-free. You can die from drinking too much water.

• The local collection points for the PM-10 and PM-2.5 standards aren’t close enough to the toxic zones of the two corridors, so the extrapolations into regional estimates, while helpful, are inadequate.

I guess you don't get to Kenmore Square and are unfamiliar with the geography. The air monitoring station is at the green arrow. Would you prefer it be located on the median of the Turnpike?
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q199/tahitiplage/SNAG-01860.jpg


Yes, and by the same logic, if the state conducts no monitoring at all — as it does with ultrafine particulate matter — that also is cause for a legitimate complaint, since the un-measured PM (ultrafine) is more harmful than the measured PM (PM-10 and PM-2.5).

Do you have citations in peer-reviewed literature that support your assertion that UFPs are individually more harmful, from a health standpoint, than exposure to PM10 and PM2.5?

..... (UFP pollution penetrates windows, doors, walls, and ceilings), and into the surrounding community above. .....

UFP pollution does not penetrate a non-permeable barrier.

....

Your difficulty in locating nanoparticle research does not mean that it doesn’t exist, only that you aren’t there yet. The National Library of Medicine has 12,000 studies on nanoparticles and health, and 11,000 studies on particulate matter and health. There probably are another 5,000 related agency and aerosol science studies that are not included in PUBMED. Among the over 20,000 studies, there are probably several thousand about primary pollution including mobile, and probably several hundred good studies that are specific to mobile ultrafines and their near source gradients.

You are obfuscating, and distorting. Your claim was that the National Library of Medicine had thousands of studies on UFPs. They do not. Studies on nano-particles are not studiers on UFPs. Studies on fine particulates are not studies on UFPs. You even now seem to state below that perhaps there are a "few studies"on UFPs.

As the total number of peer-reviewed studies grew, the exact count became less important, and what became most important is this: public health officials know, and have known for years.

What exactly do they know?

So, the question that pro-development apologists are left with is: Even if there were only a few studies showing the harmful effects of UFP, why build projects that harm the public health, when it’s possible to build ones that don’t?

The project is not a source of UFPs. The UFPs are a ubiquitous product of all those internal combustion engines traveling along Clarendon St and the Mass Pike. Why should a project such as Columbus Center be responsible for ridding the air of this pollutant? Whats wrong with an argument that your own condo association should put filters and scrubbers on the air intakes for your building to protect your health from UFPs? BTW, have you raised your UFP health concerns with residents who are buying or renting residences along Causeway St., in the North Station area. Given your so-called toxic zones, they are all in peril. Spaulding Hospital should have been closed long ago.


My comments in bold above.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . many other businessmen would sue you for defamation. . . please be careful when you attack a person's character

Actually, it was other forum members who pointed out that it is impossible to have an operational tunnel which California’s local representative Roger Cassin testified would be “hermetically sealed.”

So, there’s no need to worry that he might have been defamed, libeled, or slandered, because he wasn’t; my message doesn’t meet any of the threshold definitions for those things.

I merely repeated what he said during his videotaped subsidy application, and what he wrote in his proposal. It is because both can’t simultaneously be true, and also because one is impossible, that his representations constitute a falsehood.

Accurately citing someone else’s falsehood, with proper credit, never constitutes defamation, libel, or slander.

[Ned Flaherty]

Q-67. Is UFP air pollution systematically measured?
A-67. No. Government regulation of UFP remains rare, although it is increasing.

Q-68. Can the single Kenmore monitoring station be used to extrapolate regional UFP estimates?
A-68. No. Being one collection point, and being only for the coarse (PM10) and fine (PM2.5) standards, that station’s data can’t be used for regionally extrapolated ultrafine (PM0.1) estimates. Those existing standards don’t address UFPs, and UFP’s public health risks are different. Harvard School of Public Health Associate Professor Dr. Jonathan Levy says, “The more that we learn, the more it seems that it [ultrafine diesel particulate matter] is contributing to health effects that are different from the other pollutants that we regulate.” (See “Breathing Dirty Air”, WFXT, 24 April 2008.)

Q-69. Are UFPs more harmful to health than fine and coarse particles?
A-69. Yes. That is the consensus opinion among experts working with particulate matter. There are too many studies to list here, but these two findings are typical.

■ “. . . Both coarse and fine particles cause harmful health effects, although fine particles (especially the ultrafine ones) tend to be more dangerous.” (“Scientific Facts on Air Pollution \ Particulate Matter \ Conclusions on Particulate Matter (PM)”, 31 August 2005, after peer review by GreenFacts, an independent, non-advocacy, multi-stakeholder non-profit organization dedicated to providing non-specialists with unbiased scientific information on environmental and health topics, and based on quotes from “Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Particulate Matter”, World Health Organization, 10 April 2003.)

■ “. . . The size distinction is important as the particle size reflects in part, the penetration potential into the respiratory tract. [Regarding] all particles that can enter the nose and mouth with breathing . . . ultrafine particles are more insidious as they are capable of deep penetration and deposition into the lung cavity (“Ultrafine Particle Deposition in Humans During Rest and Exercise”, Christopher C. Daigle et. al., Inhalation Toxicology, 6 May 2003, pages 539-552. Departments of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA).

Q-70. Is permeability an absolute characteristic?
A-70. No. A given material can be non-permeable for water, yet permeable for UFPs; so buildings can deflect rainfall, while allowing UFP matter to pass through, even when windows and doors are kept shut.

Q-71. What do public health officials know?
A-71. Public health officials know that UFP risks pose the greatest urban public health problem in the developed world, leading to a wide range of illnesses and premature death, and that UFPs are most dangerous within a few blocks of their sources. Many studies focused on specific illnesses, age groups, weather conditions, traffic patterns, etc., while collectively validating the general risks to public health.

Q-72. Why should this project be held responsible for UFP air pollution?
A-72. For people who work or live at or near I-90 Parcels 16-17-18-19, Columbus Center itself increases UFP exposure by capturing UFP air pollution from the tunnels running 6 blocks east and 6 blocks west, concentrating it, and then exhausting it via Columbus Center’s 5 vents.

Q-73. Can Columbus Center’s UFP air pollution be eliminated by fresh air intake filters?
A-73. No. On a community-wide basis, fresh air intake filters offer only a marginal improvement, because (a) most buildings have no such facility; and (b) even in buildings with fresh air systems, most UFP-laden air enters via other routes.

Q-74. What happens at Causeway Street and Spaulding Hospital?
A-74. People who work and live near I-93, such as on Causeway Street and at Spaulding Hospital, suffer greater exposure than people along I-90, because of higher traffic volumes.

[sidewalks]

I think we should all live in hermetically sealed bubbles...life would be so much safer. I can't help but imagine that Ned will show up at the next public hearing in a clear plastic globe.

[cden4]

What do these assertions mean about the Big Dig? There you have all the particles from the tunnels collected and distributed in a few places.

[Ron Newman]

And I recall the Sierra Club asking that scrubbers be installed in the Big Dig vents -- something I still think would have been a good idea.

[stellarfun]

And I recall the Sierra Club asking that scrubbers be installed in the Big Dig vents -- something I still think would have been a good idea.

Ron, the technology for controlling UFPs is to reduce their emission from sources, with most of the focus being on diesel engines. If you can reduce the fine particulates from diesels, you'll get some of the UFPs as well.

Nobody tries to scrub the atmosphere; you'd throw more pollutants into the atmosphere powering the control technology than you would take out through scrubbing. IMO, Ned gets as much UFP exposure from the Mass Pike and the MBTA tracks now as he would after Columbus Center was built.

[sidewalks]

NED TESTS NEWLY DEVELOPED "COLUMBUS CENTER RESISTANT" APPAREL ON A RECENT TRIP THROUGH THE POLLUTION CLOGGED STREETS OF BOSTON

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3623/jakegyllenhaalpatrickcrwj4.jpg

[albertmw]

Columbus Center countdown (http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=75143)

[Lrfox]

"push for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area."


Can't wait to see how that turns out. NAWWWT!

[tobyjug]

Having the homeless perform union work brings a new dimension to being scabs.

[buju b]

Indeed ;->!

My guess is that they'd do the job no worse but for a lot less money and more quickly than the unions.

[Scott]

Indeed ;->!

My guess is that they'd do the job no worse but for a lot less money and more quickly than the unions.

Well, we know Republicans won't do the work, they might break a well manicured nail. Though I'm sure Halliburton will take on the job.

[Ned Flaherty]

Columbus Center countdown
South End News ● May 29, 2008 ● by Scott Kearnan

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/ColumbusCenterMay292008.jpg

The Columbus Center construction site, which started work in November 2007, remains largely abandoned. Photo: SEN staff

At a meeting of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association on May 27, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) executive director Alan LeBovidge told the nearly two dozen residents in attendance that the agency would be in talks with the developers of the Columbus Center for project for just one more month.

LeBovidge said that the MTA, which is currently leasing the land to developers of the luxury condo/retail project, would entertain conversation for one more month to determine whether to grant an 18-month "continuance on any further construction" the developers requested in March. He also said that if the developers, a union between the local Winn Development and partners CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System) and MacFarlane Partners, indicate construction will resume as planned at the end of that continuance, the request will be granted and interim measures will be taken to clean up the messy construction eyesore for local residents.

But if the developer is unable to provide assurance of continued progress, said LeBovidge, the MTA will assume that "this [construction] is not going to happen" and will press for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area.

LeBovidge’s reassurances were met with a mixture of hope and skepticism from the residents in attendance, many of whom live on Cortes Street. That street directly abuts the construction site and residents have been given postponed promises of progress in the past. With construction halted while Columbus Center developers look for new funding, these residents have been vocal about the practical and aesthetic consequences resulting from the long hiatus on work: eliminated parking spots, felled trees, and trash dumping, to name a few.

LeBovidge acknowledged their concerns about the stalled construction, and cut the tension with humor as the meeting commenced in a conference room in the South Cove Plaza apartment building. "I got nervous when I saw this," began LeBovidge, indicating a rectangular, cardboard box sitting on a table. "I thought you might put me inside and saw me in two."

The Columbus Center project has long been beset with problems in its development, most specifically ballooning construction costs - more than a decade a go, developers said the seven-acre project could be built for around $300 million. Now, that’s grown to an estimated $800 million.

Construction, which began in November 2007, came to a total standstill, however, when the developers said they were unable to move forward without anticipated state funding for the project. In March, developers requested the 18-month continuance from the MTA because, they said, around $35 million in state grants and loans they felt essential to the project’s "capital structure" remained in limbo. In early April, two weeks after the moratorium was requested, the Patrick administration denied the project a $10 million MORE grant, in part because the developers had stopped construction. The next day, MassHousing announced that it would no longer be closing on $20.6 million in loans it had previously approved for the project. As of now, the project’s future is uncertain, although the developers did say in late April that they’d continue "minimal work" on the site in order to keep it "in play" ("Columbus Center Still in Limbo," May 1).

The back and forth has frustrated local residents, some of whom support the ultimate goal of the project but who are all left with the ramifications of a seemingly inactive, seven-acre construction zone on their front steps.

Clarendon Street resident and longtime critic of the project Ned Flaherty recently authored a petition to circulate among Bay Village and South End residents, outlining the impact of the Columbus Center construction zone on locals. The petition urges the decision makers to whom it is addressed - including LeBovidge and Mayor Thomas M. Menino, among others - to "ensure that the project owners - not the tollpayers or taxpayers - immediately finish and pay for all work to secure and restore the turnpike, sidewalks, streets and neighborhoods to their pre-construction conditions."

"When the [developers] halted construction in March... [decision-makers] promised they’d secure and restore the seven-acre construction site to the condition it was in summer 2007," said Flaherty via email. "But here it is the start of June 2008, and nothing’s been done."

Something may be done soon - interim clean-up measures are already underway. Jessica Shumaker, spokesperson for the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), confirmed that developers are paying Project Place, a South End nonprofit that provides employment opportunities for city homeless, to conduct cleanup of the sidewalks and construction zone while residents wait on the verdict of the project’s future. She said the Project Place efforts should be helpful in addressing resident concerns while respecting that the project’s future remains uncertain. "We are very concerned that the sidewalks are restored and some of the parking restored," said Shumaker.

Clean up will begin within the week and workers will visit the site three times a week to maintain it, Suzanne Kenney, executive director of Project Place, said.

Despite the frustration, many Cortes Street residents are excited to finally see some movement on the cleanup front. "I have to say, the BRA was really responsive. I’m very happy with it," said Lynn Andrews, a resident who emailed the city department about trash dumping she had observed at the site. Andrews reported, corroborated by several other Cortes Street residents, that a mattress, chair, and old television were among objects she saw disposed on the sidewalk outside the construction zone. While they were quickly removed, she said that she feared the inactive site might be viewed as a free-for-all dumping zone and worried the situation would escalate.

But critics like Flaherty wonder how much cleanup work the Project Place team can reasonably accomplish, and whether it is appropriate for them to be the crew in use. Flaherty noted that the developers, in the initial proposal, had promised that all project labor would be paid at union-scale wages with benefits. "The BRA is responsible for enforcing that union-scale promise for all the project’s workers, including workers from Project Place ... The Mayor’s redevelopment staff should enforce the promises that these developers made to get his approval," Flaherty said in his email.

The individuals working with Project Place do not receive union scale; according to Kenney, they are paid an hourly minimum wage with potential for bonuses and incentives. Alan Eisner, spokesperson for the Columbus Center project, responded to Flaherty’s concern by saying, "Yes, we are using Project Place personnel, and that was part of an agreement that the developers made with the City of Boston during the permitting process. It’s the only non-union activity that’s been contemplated."

Speaking more generally to the point of the Columbus Center’s future, however, Eisner said that there has been "no change" in determining how the project will move forward.
END

"Things are as they were last time," said Eisner, referring to a May 1 meeting with the BRA where the developers did not provide any information regarding newly secured funding.

[Ned Flaherty]

Ron, the technology for controlling UFPs is to reduce their emission from sources . . .
The technology isn’t limited to only emission reduction. Two approaches exist for remediating UFP air pollution from the I-90 and I-93 transportation corridors: (1) reduce the creation of emissions at their sources (engines in vehicles and trains), and (2) scrub the air as it passes from the tunnels, through the project, into the community.

IMO, Ned gets as much UFP exposure from the Mass Pike and the MBTA tracks now as he would after Columbus Center was built.
You missed my answer #72, posted yesterday, but repeated here for your convenience:

For people who work or live near I-90 Parcels 16-17-18-19, Columbus Center increases UFP exposure by capturing UFP air pollution from the tunnels running 6 blocks east and 6 blocks west (underneath Back Bay, South End, and Chinatown), concentrating it, and then exhausting it via Columbus Center’s 5 vents.

[Ned Flaherty]

Yesterday’s news is further evidence of the public health risks posed by the 5-vent scheme in California’s Columbus Center.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect public health of people working or living near high-traffic roadways such as Boston’s I-90 and I-93.

The suit seeks to force EPA to monitor the locations where people’s health is most damaged by very high concentrations of fresh pollutants. Currently, EPA strongly discourages monitoring such locations, preferring regional averages that mask the “hot” spots.

Regarding people who work or live near high-traffic roads, EPA spokesman Matt Haber admits, “We don’t have an answer yet. It’s a huge issue in which science is not as good as it is for the general population.”

See “Suit targets air quality along freeways; Environmental groups want to force the EPA to do more comprehensive monitoring” (Los Angeles Times, 29 May 2008, www.latimes.com/features/health/la-me-air29-2008may29,0,1365896.story)

[stellarfun]

The technology isn’t limited to only emission reduction. Two approaches exist for remediating UFP air pollution from the I-90 and I-93 transportation corridors: (1) reduce the creation of emissions at their sources (engines in vehicles and trains), and (2) scrub the air as it passes from the tunnels, through the project, into the community.


You missed my answer #72, posted yesterday, but repeated here for your convenience:

For people who work or live near I-90 Parcels 16-17-18-19, Columbus Center increases UFP exposure by capturing UFP air pollution from the tunnels running 6 blocks east and 6 blocks west (underneath Back Bay, South End, and Chinatown), concentrating it, and then exhausting it via Columbus Center’s 5 vents.

There is no practicable technology currently available that can scrub the volume of air that is present in these tunnels. If you know of such, please provide a citation.

To vent a tunnel in the event of a fire, the recommended exhaust capacity is 100 cubic feet per minute per highway lane foot. So assuming a 600 foot long tunnel 90 lane feet wide, that would require a scrubber able to handle 5.4 million cubic feet of air every minute. Do you think such a scrubber might be bigger than Columbus Center? Or maybe tall enough to be the new Tommy Tower?

I didn't miss your answer #72. I stand by my earlier answer.

[chumbolly]

Dear Ned,

May we please have our thread back?

Calling this "California's" Columbus Center is a disingenuous red herring, and that sort of approach makes you seem like Ann Coulter talking about gay marriage--all frothy and unburdened by reason. While I respect your general point, all this carrying on by you is causing me to associate a good thing (clean air in our cities) with an odd combination of annoyance and apathy.

[kz1000ps]

California's Colmbus Center?

Are you trying to get us going?

[tobyjug]

I hope the city makes the "developer" plant a high and substantial screen between the Pike and Cortes. I assume (foolishly) that there is a performance bond that covers the remediation and that the surety has been put on notice of a potential default!(?)

[Suffolk 83]

Does Ned repeat his comments over and over? Sorry I can't be bothered reading this pointless dribble, I'm just curious what this muppet carries on about.

I second Chumbolly I want the thread back.

[Ned Flaherty]

There is no practicable technology currently available that can scrub the volume of air that is present in these tunnels.

Such scrubbing systems aren’t pre-built, stored in warehouses, or sitting in the aisles at Home Depot; each has to be custom designed and fabricated for a specific application. Experts who work in this tell me that the technology does exist, and can be adapted to clean the I-90 and I-93 corridors as soon as agreed to by some mix of the owners: State of Massachusetts, Turnpike Authority, City of Boston, California pension plan, etcetera.

But, rather than argue the fine technical points further myself, I will identify and then post here some information, firms, and people, so anyone who cares can study further on their own.

[Ned Flaherty]

Calling this "California's" Columbus Center is a disingenuous red herring. . . all frothy and unburdened by reason.

Remember that there are forum members and several elected officials still walking around town referring to “Winn’s” project, what “Winn” might do next, whether “Winn” has any money left, etcetera.

They all would benefit by remembering that on 15 March 2006, Winn sold Columbus Center for about $48 million to the California pension plan (CalPERS), and its off-the-government-books subsidiary (CUIP), and its contract investment consulting firm (MURC). Since then, CalPERS-CUIP-MURC has controlled every major decision, including the mid-March decision to halt construction, and the request for a new project calendar spanning 28 years:

13.08 years - Plan (Sep. 1996 - Sep. 2009)
02.25 years - Build Railway & Roadway Tunnels (Oct. 2009 - Dec. 2011)
10.00 years - Delay Construction (Jan. 2012 - Dec. 2021)
02.50 years - Erect Buildings (Jan. 2022 - Jun. 2024)
27.83 years + unlimited extensions for unforeseen, uncontrollable events

Anyone startled by this total of 28+ years should read the documents released by MTA last February:
■ Lease Amendment Summary, page 4 (MTA, 29 February 2008)
■ Lease Amendment, pages 16-17, (MTA, 29 February 2008).

More than any other entity, the continuance, success, and/or failure of this proposal lies in the hands of CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, or “California” for short.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . I assume (foolishly) that there is a performance bond that covers the remediation and that the surety has been put on notice of a potential default!(?)

Surety on this project consists of two forms.

In the lease signed and promptly defaulted over two years ago, Article 4.12 (b) (vi) required California (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) to provide payment, performance, and lien bonds for the tunnels and decks.

The amendment that California agreed to on 29 February 2008 included further guarantees assuring the MTA up to $285 million if for any reason the tunnels and decks were not completed on time and as designed. But California never signed, MTA withdrew the previously finalized amendment, and now both sides are negotiating over a 29-year project calendar, among other things.

So, yes, there was a performance bond in the original lease, and, yes, there were even stronger guarantees in the amendment. But California defaulted on the 2006 lease, and never signed the 2008 amendment. Consequently, MTA expects to announce some new prognosis in early July, including whether the set of guarantees has been left alone, loosened, or tightened.

[chumbolly]

Anyone startled by this total of 29+ years should read the documents released by MTA last February.....

Er, anyone startled by a 29+ year delay has clearly not crossed your path, Ned.

[pelhamhall]

I'm sure this was posted much earlier in the thread, but this is a really cool interactive feature:

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/columbus_center/flash_graphic/

Now that the debate over this project is decisively over, it's worth taking a step back and checking out the incredible asset and addition to the city of Boston that will be coming once the capital markets sort themselves out and the delicate mosaic of financing for a project this complex gets worked out.

[kmp1284]

Ned, Question 75, might you be able to describe the view from your unit in 75 Clarendon and furthermore, how that view and correspondingly your property values will be influenced by a fully developed Columbus Center?

[KentXie]

I think we should just get rid of the MassPike and plant parks all over it so that nobody will be exposed to the big bad UFP that can kill us all. While we are at it, let's ban all vehicles and turn Boston into one of those small town suburbs so we don't need to worry about the UFP.

[kmp1284]

Think about it, if UFP's are as bad as Neddy purports, do you really think even he would be stupid enough to live right next to a major source. I check ziprealty everyday salivating over seeing unit 508 on the market so I can move in and be exposed to those wonderful toxins.

[lawtown]

this would be a great place to live in with the skyline view of boston

[tobyjug]

Surety on this project consists of two forms.

In the lease signed and promptly defaulted over two years ago, Article 4.12 (b) (vi) required California (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) to provide payment, performance, and lien bonds for the tunnels and decks.

The amendment that California agreed to on 29 February 2008 included further guarantees assuring the MTA up to $285 million if for any reason the tunnels and decks were not completed on time and as designed. But California never signed, MTA withdrew the previously finalized amendment, and now both sides are negotiating over a 29-year project calendar, among other things.

So, yes, there was a performance bond in the original lease, and, yes, there were even stronger guarantees in the amendment. But California defaulted on the 2006 lease, and never signed the 2008 amendment. Consequently, MTA expects to announce some new prognosis in early July, including whether the set of guarantees has been left alone, loosened, or tightened.

Interesting. The payment bond would not be in play at this point, but the performance bond is intriguing. (Note for non-construction types: a performance bond is required in a public construction project, usually in an amount equal to 100% of the project cost. As the name implies, it pays for performance by substitute contactors hired to complete work that the original contractor would not or could not complete.)

The issue here would be the scope of work which the performance bond secures. Not having reviewed the contract documents, I guess that it covers only the "public infrastructure" part of the development: decking, street and sidewalk improvements, publically owned amenities. It ought to cover remediation too.

A failure to sign a 2008 amendment should not excuse a default of the 2006 contract.

In this type of situation, it is usually adviseable to immediately initiate a bond claim by putting the surety (usually a large insurer) on formal notice of a claim. This has the useful effect of making it difficult, or even impossible for the developer to obtain a bond on any other project it might be contemplating. As you can imagine, this usually brings matters to a head pretty quickly, as very little major construction occurs without some type of bond. A developer/contractor which cannot put up either a bond or cash as security is out of business.

I am again guessing that the surety (if any was secured) laid alot of its potential exposure off on to reinsurers. A claim would create a panic among them. The fur would fly!

If part of the 2006 default was a failure to provide any bond, I question the ability of the developer to complete the project. Such a failure means either the developer could not afford the bond premium charged by the surety, or the surety companies deemed the developer so lacking in creditworthiness that none would issue a bond on the project. Neither of these scenarios is good, and such an unworthy developer should be jettisoned as soon as possible. He, she or it is always a deadbeat timewaster.

[stellarfun]

Such scrubbing systems aren’t pre-built, stored in warehouses, or sitting in the aisles at Home Depot; each has to be custom designed and fabricated for a specific application. Experts who work in this tell me that the technology does exist, and can be adapted to clean the I-90 and I-93 corridors as soon as agreed to by some mix of the owners: State of Massachusetts, Turnpike Authority, City of Boston, California pension plan, etcetera.

But, rather than argue the fine technical points further myself, I will identify and then post here some information, firms, and people, so anyone who cares can study further on their own.

Ned, I never said the technology to scrub doesn't exist; I am saying that the volume of air that you have to scrub makes the application of the technology impracticable. I'd be interested if the "experts" you talk to can identify a single example where the ambient air from an urban highway or a long tunnel is being scrubbed.

As for the NRDC suit in California, there are some differences between there and Boston.

a.) Southern California is a non-attainment area for particulates. Boston is not.

b.) the suit wants particulate monitoring stations to be closer to major freeways. In Boston, the monitoring stations, e.g., Kenmore Sq. are very close to these highways.

c.) traffic volume, particularly diesel truck volume, is much higher on these major Southern California freeways than it is in Boston.

d.) the suit targets limits on motor vehicle emissions, thus trying to control pollution from the source. At Columbus Center, you are trying to treat the polluted air.

[Ned Flaherty]

Ned . . . might you be able to describe the view from your unit in 75 Clarendon and furthermore, how that view and correspondingly your property values will be influenced by a fully developed Columbus Center?

As I’ve said for 13 years, all the views from my home — and the property values affected by those views — would remain totally unchanged. My thread post #544 (2 April 2008) is repeated here for your convenience: “None of my written or verbal testimony was ever about views, because those would change little if the proposed Columbus Center were built. Even if the views changed a lot, that’s relatively unimportant.”

Columbus Center would reduce property values, not because of views — mine or anyone else’s — but because of public health risks. The project’s 5 air pollution vents — exhausting air from the tunnels running 6 blocks west and 6 blocks east — will increase health care costs, lost work days, illness, and fatalities for people working or living near the project.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . The issue here would be the scope of work which the performance bond secures. Not having reviewed the contract documents, I guess that it covers only the "public infrastructure" part of the development: decking, street and sidewalk improvements, publically owned amenities

Streets and sidewalks must be repaired after construction finishes, but that’s merely a regulatory requirement. Most importantly, this project contains no public infrastructure at all. The lease and other legal agreements defined everything being built — tunnels, decks, buildings, parks — as 100% privately owned.

. . . A failure to sign a 2008 amendment should not excuse a default of the 2006 contract. . .

It’s true that failing to sign the 2008 amendment now doesn’t excuse defaulting on the 2006 lease two years ago.

But note this key distinction between these two documents: it was the 2006 lease that required tunnel/deck replacement insurance, and payment-performance-completion bonds, but it was the 2008 amendment that required the $285 million in “absolute, unconditional” tunnel completion guarantees.

The lease was signed; the amendment wasn’t. So, MTA can evict its tenant for defaulting on the 2006 lease, but it can’t cash in the guarantees (because although California negotiated them into the 2008 amendment, they never signed it).

. . . I am again guessing that the surety (if any was secured) laid a lot of its potential exposure off on to reinsurers. A claim would create a panic among them. The fur would fly!. . .

The liability you’re thinking of would have been borne by reinsurers — if there were any. But there weren’t. California insured itself when it negotiated the $285 million in guarantees. Yes, any claim will cause panic, but the fur that flies will be only from the pelts of the original owners (Winn), current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC), and city, state, and federal agencies.

. . . A developer/contractor which cannot put up either a bond or cash as security is out of business. . . If part of the 2006 default was a failure to provide any bond, I question the ability of the developer to complete the project. Such a failure means either the developer could not afford the bond premium charged by the surety, or the surety companies deemed the developer so lacking in creditworthiness that none would issue a bond on the project. Neither of these scenarios is good, and such an unworthy developer should be jettisoned as soon as possible. He, she or it is always a deadbeat timewaster.

Yes. That’s precisely why the current proposal can’t succeed, no matter how nicely market conditions are believed to improve in future years.

[Ned Flaherty]

Ned, I never said the technology to scrub doesn't exist; I am saying that the volume of air that you have to scrub makes the application of the technology impracticable. I'd be interested if the "experts" you talk to can identify a single example where the ambient air from an urban highway or a long tunnel is being scrubbed.

The studies of logistics, practicality, and affordability are still in progress, but I’ll post results after they’re released. It might turn out that I-90 is the first such tunnel to accomplish this. But the fact that an operational example isn’t in use today doesn’t mean the technology doesn’t exist, or that it can’t be implemented.

. . . As for the NRDC suit in California, there are some differences between there and Boston.

Yes, there are climate and traffic differences between many areas, including California and Massachusetts. However, those differences don’t matter, because the suit isn’t about specific remedies for California, or Boston, or any particular location. Rather, the suit seeks to force EPA to adopt appropriate policy nationwide: taking the right measurements, at the right locations, at the right times, and reporting in ways that don’t hide the public health risks. The suit uses California only as an example to illustrate the problem; but the NRDC plaintiffs, the EPA defendants, and the court will agree that any solution should be workable nationwide.

[stellarfun]

The studies of logistics, practicality, and affordability are still in progress, but I’ll post results after they’re released. It might turn out that I-90 is the first such tunnel to accomplish this. But the fact that an operational example isn’t in use today doesn’t mean the technology doesn’t exist, or that it can’t be implemented.

Yes, there are climate and traffic differences between many areas, including California and Massachusetts. However, those differences don’t matter, because the suit isn’t about specific remedies for California, or Boston, or any particular location. Rather, the suit seeks to force EPA to adopt appropriate policy nationwide: taking the right measurements, at the right locations, at the right times, and reporting in ways that don’t hide the public health risks. The suit uses California only as an example to illustrate the problem; but the NRDC plaintiffs, the EPA defendants, and the court will agree that any solution should be workable nationwide.

Ned, so in the end this seems to be where we stand:

For ultrafine particulates (particles) (UFPs):

a.) no national, regional, or local air quality standard specifying permissible ambient concentrations of UFPs currently exists, nor is one being developed;

b.) no monitoring of current ambient concentrations of UFPs is being done anywhere in Massachusetts;

c.) Massachusetts currently attains national air quality standards for fine particulates, which are larger than UFPs;

D.) Massachusetts continuously monitors ambient concentrations of fine particulates at monitoring stations located proximate to major urban highways;

E.) No technology has been identified that can scrub UFPs from the open atmosphere, although there exist technologies that can scrub UFPs from closed systems;

F.) Nobody in the world has sought to capture and scrub pollutants from the open atmosphere;

G.) In your view, Columbus Center should be responsible for developing, installing, and operating the world's first pollution control technology that scrubs the UFPs that are an emission byproduct of of vehicles traveling on the Mass Pike and MBTA trains at Back Bay station. The technology should be designed to achieve a standard that does not yet exist. The technology should be designed to achieve maximum feasible control, even if such control exceeds what might in the future be necessary to achieve a standard if a standard is ever proposed. (If you don't have a standard, and you don't know (or care about) current ambient concentrations of UFPs, you basically build best available technology.)

H.) In your view, Columbus Center should not proceed with construction until it has agreed to develop, install, and operate a scrubbing system for UFPs.

To help your 'experts', here is a summary of cloud chamber technology that is being used to scrub the diesel exhaust of railway engines in railyards.

http://www.tri-mer.com/ccs-case-study-6-diesel-exhaust-emissions.html#diesel

I suggest your 'experts' read it carefully and note that the technology used converts a diesel engine into a closed system, and the capacity of the technology re: volume of air.
___________________________________

As for the NRDC suit, you ought to stick to IT, because you evince little understanding of the law, or the legal process,

You might want to read the NRDC press release on this lawsuit, which unequivocally states that the case involves air quality in southern California. It is not a national lawsuit, with national implications. If NRDC wanted to do that, it would choose a different venue.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080529.asp

[Ned Flaherty]

Stellarfun, both the problem and the solution are simpler and clearer than you imagine.

Here’s my view. But it’s not just mine. So far, every I-90 corridor resident who has learned how they would suffer from this vent scheme shares this view.

● WHEREAS: EPA hasn’t yet set a UFP standard, and Massachusetts hasn’t yet started monitoring, but public health officials are aware of the public health risks from UFP air pollution;

● WHEREAS: the tunnel-ization of the I-93 and I-90 corridors worsens the exposure rates for many people, because it concentrates the pollution below and exhausts it into offices, homes, and communities above;

● WHEREAS: the problem that makes UFPs more dangerous along I-90 and I-93 in Boston — concentration in tunnels and exhausting via vents — also presents a rare opportunity to mitigate that very same danger;

● WHEREAS: the latest proposal is to concentrate air pollution captured as far away as 6 blocks west and 6 blocks east, and exhaust all of it through Columbus Center’s 5 vents (3 open-air, 2 mechanized);

● WHEREAS: other proposals across the I-90 corridor in Boston would do likewise;

● WHEREAS: this inexcusable assault on the health of people working and living over the corridor, and several blocks north and south, is unnecessary, and remediation is possible;

● WHEREAS: six business partners (MTA, CalPERS, CUIP, MURC, CWCC, and BRA) expect to consume public funds and public property to generate profits for 99 years;

■ THEREFORE, the 6 profiteering partners should publicly identify the optimum solution, and apportion the costs among themselves. If not, the people who work and live in areas affected by the proposed pollution have every right to halt it, or to be compensated for the lost work days, illness, premature death, and funeral expenses that the proponents’ vent scheme causes.

Correction #1: Your mis-characterizations such as “MBTA trains at Back Bay station” diminish and dismiss the railway portion of the overall problem. All diesel railway engines — freight and passenger trains — generate UFPs, across Boston’s entire I-90 corridor; it’s not just “MBTA trains at Back Bay Station.”

Correction #2: Yes, I read the National Resources Defense Council press release. Yes, the suit is local, and yes, the example used in is air quality in southern California, and yes, NRDC wants California’s clean-air plan improved. But the prosecution of the case, and the resulting changes at EPA, will be national in their scope and their impact. A suit doesn’t have to be filed in a federal court to have a national impact.

[stellarfun]

Stellarfun, both the problem and the solution are simpler and clearer than you imagine.

Here’s my view. But it’s not just mine. So far, every I-90 corridor resident who has learned how they would suffer from this vent scheme shares this view.


Correction #1: Your mis-characterizations such as “MBTA trains at Back Bay station” diminish and dismiss the railway portion of the overall problem. All diesel railway engines — freight and passenger trains — generate UFPs, across Boston’s entire I-90 corridor; it’s not just “MBTA trains at Back Bay Station.”

Correction #2: Yes, I read the National Resources Defense Council press release. Yes, the suit is local, and yes, the example used in is air quality in southern California, and yes, NRDC wants California’s clean-air plan improved. But the prosecution of the case, and the resulting changes at EPA, will be national in their scope and their impact. A suit doesn’t have to be filed in a federal court to have a national impact.

Ned, I suggest you visit a lawyer, narrate all your whereas clauses, and ask him or her to file a motion in Suffolk Superior Court, seeking an injunction against the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the City of Boston, and whomever else you choose to join as a defendant. The injunction would prohibit the Turnpike Authority and the City from further executing any lease or sale of rights on property either owns to any developer, including Winn & Cassin, until such developer provides for the installation and operation of an pollution control system to eliminate, to the greatest feasible extent, UFPs from the vented air associated with that development. To be uniform, the injunction should apply to all projects proposed to be built over the Turnpike, including, for example, the Kenmore Square project, the BU transportation hub, etc.

In other words, put your money, in this instance lots of money, where your mouth is.
_______________________________________

Re: trains at Back Bay station. AMTRAK trains, except for two, are all electric, and don't discharge UFPs. There are no freight trains in Back Bay as there are no freight yards or freight spurs east of Back Bay. The trackage in South Boston is accessed through Readville.

Re: the NRDC suit. Again, don't betray your level of legal ignorance and mis-perception. The NRDC suit was filed in the Ninth Circuit, a Federal appeals court with jurisdiction for California. The Ninth Circuit is a Federal court, not a state or local court. (Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases where the Federal government, in this case EPA, is a party.) If NRDC wished to challenge a national standard, or a national implementation plan, etc, or seek a ruling with national application, the more usual venue for such is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.

[KentXie]

● WHEREAS: EPA hasn’t yet set a UFP standard, and Massachusetts hasn’t yet started monitoring, but public health officials are aware of the public health risks from UFP air pollution


If there is no standard, why does CC have to follow it then? I also agree with Stellar. CC was not required to mitigitate the impact of UFP. Yes maybe they did promise to make sure UFP will not create a toxic zone but a promise is not the same as a requirement. If you are afraid of UFP so much, move out of the city and into the suburbs, there's no UFP there. This is a city, pollution comes along with it. If you don't like it, don't live in it.

[stellarfun]

If there is no standard, why does CC have to follow it then? I also agree with Stellar. CC was not required to mitigitate the impact of UFP. Yes maybe they did promise to make sure UFP will not create a toxic zone but a promise is not the same as a requirement. If you are afraid of UFP so much, move out of the city and into the suburbs, there's no UFP there. This is a city, pollution comes along with it. If you don't like it, don't live in it.

There is a history in Federal anti-pollution laws of requiring that sources use what is sometimes termed as best available technology. One reason for requiring such is to put competitive industries on a relatively equal footing with regard to the costs of pollution control. Such technology is required regardless of the concentrations of a particular pollutant in the air or water.

What Ned fails to realize with respect to the NRDC suit in Southern California and why the regional air quality boards are resisting the lawsuit is that the remedy would likely be to restrict truck traffic on freeways, so the amount of pollutants discharged are less because the vehicle miles are less. So the trucks get pushed onto secondary roads, their engines burn less efficiently, and overall emission levels get worse.

As there is no technology that will do what Ned would like, neither Columbus Center nor any developer is going to be compelled to scrub the air flowing out of the vents.

But if he were successful in his hypothetical (for the moment) suit in the sense that a court ruled that Massachusetts should establish a UFP standard for air near major urban highways, and assuming the state then needed to take steps to achieve that standard, there would be two remedies: greatly reduce all traffic on the Mass Pike east of Allston (banning all diesel trucks for example), which will ensure fewer UFPs reach his condo, or buy out his condo and his building and tear it down. The latter solution is not radical. The South Essex Sewage District bought out a row of homes across the street from a new sewage treatment plant because the property owners complained about the odor, and then tore them down. (The odor is no longer really there; the resulting greenscape is a testament to property owners whose bluff was called. Their backyard neighbors, presumably happily, still live in their houses.)

[Ron Newman]

The latter solution is not radical. The South Essex Sewage District bought out a row of homes across the street from a new sewage treatment plant because the property owners complained about the odor, and then tore them down.

And this is also the explanation for a formerly occupied ghost neighborhood of empty streets in Playa del Rey, west of Los Angeles International Airport. In this case, the complaint was noise.

Surfridge Ghosttown (http://www.lakata.org/arch/surfridge/)

http://www.lakata.org/arch/surfridge/surfridge_street.jpg

[stellarfun]

I've persisted in this protracted digression about air quality standards because Ned's assertions, if unchallenged, take on an aura of credibility and legitimacy.

Some of it, at least to me, seems transparent. For example, why doesn't Ned cite the health hazards posed by fine particulates, for which there are abundant studies, and ask that these be scrubbed? The answer would seem to be that Massachusetts attains the air quality standard for fine particulates, so there is not an argumentaive leg to stand on.

Thus, there is resorting to the potential risk of UFPs, for which there are no standards, no measurement in Massachusetts of ambient concentrations of this pollutant, and very few studies that seek to correlate health risk with exposure. A large field of unknowns which is then seeded with fears and simplistic solutions.

I'll predict that removing UFPs by scrubbing 5.3 million cubic feet of air a minute (using the ventilating standard for 100 cubic feet of air per highway lane foot and 54,000 lane feet near Columbus Center) would require a facility bigger than Columbus Center itself.

[briv]

Briv, thread administrators such as yourself are trained to ensure the most efficient use of site resources, so given that the original article was posted more legibly and with a better image in message #1052 on 30 May, then why did you re-post the entire thing again in message #1074, with a lower quality image, in less legible all italics, 2 days later?

Ned, I don know if you were trying to be funny, or cute, or if you were just being a douche, but obviously I overlooked that original post. I realize that you may not be able to see this through your all-consuming obsession with Columbus Center, but it's pretty easy for posts to be lost in the overwhelming volume of your incessantly-posted screeds.

I can only assume that you were trying to be ironic when you questioned the efficiency of my use of "site resources" soon after you yourself had just posted three discreet comments in a row, one after the other, separated by only minutes. In fact, I see you've posted six times today alone, bringing your total, all in this single thread, to a whopping 158 posts. I think it's pretty clear to everyone but yourself that you're not only posting excessively, but also in a very inefficient way.

Up to this point, I think that I've been more than tolerant of your kooky preoccupation with the procedural minutia--real or imagined--concerning this project; but enough is enough. The constant posting is becoming something of a nuisance. So consider yourself warned: either learn some restraint, or you can drag your soapbox elsewhere.

[Ned Flaherty]

If there is no standard, why does CC have to follow it then?
No one has said that any project must follow a standard that does not yet exist. But what I have said here, and what other corridor residents are saying elsewhere, is that because the public health risks from UFP exposure are well known, and because MTA’s ventilation scheme exacerbates those risks manifold, MTA and its business partners should identify the optimum solution and then provide it.

. . . CC was not required to mitigitate the impact of UFP.
UFP was discovered — and the resulting public health risks were confirmed — before this project was proposed, so the City’s scope required the owners’ proposal to include UFP and the MTA’s vents. But both were omitted, so corridor residents couldn’t raise the issue, and the agencies received no public comments about it. So, no, the owners have not yet been required to mitigate this. But they still could be.

Yes maybe they did promise to make sure UFP will not create a toxic zone but a promise is not the same as a requirement.
In Boston, promises that owners make just to get approvals are converted into the equivalent of legal requirements and written into multiple government agreements, such as this project’s MTA Development Agreement, MTA 99-Year Lease, and various public subsidy applications. Whether the “hermetically sealed” promise will be enforced remains to be seen.

. . . If you are afraid of UFP so much, move out of the city and into the suburbs, there's no UFP there.
The completed studies show that UFP is found in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.

. . . This is a city, pollution comes along with it. If you don't like it, don't live in it.
Developers often say, “If you don’t like what we want to do, then you should move.” But the reverse sentiment carries greater weight in zoning lawsuits: “What you want to do hasn’t been allowed before, and it isn’t allowed now, and it shouldn’t be allowed later, so either do it elsewhere, or else don’t do it at all.” Of course, neither attitude makes for constructive dialogue, but both appear often.

. . . if . . . a court ruled that Massachusetts should establish a UFP standard . . . and . . . achieve that standard, there would be two remedies: greatly reduce all traffic . . ., or buy out his condo and his building and tear it down.

Remedy #1 (traffic reduction) has proven universally impractical, and remedy #2 (demolition) is rare; but there are three other remedies, all more likley after a lawsuit:
#3 - Build something that complies with the standard.
#4 - Postpone building until the standard can be met.
#5 - Don’t build anything at all.

[Cojapo]

Apparently Briv, your point was not taken!

[stellarfun]

No one has said that any project must follow a standard that does not yet exist. But what I have said here, and what other corridor residents are saying elsewhere, is that because the public health risks from UFP exposure are well known, and because MTA’s ventilation scheme exacerbates those risks manifold, MTA and its business partners should identify the optimum solution and then provide it.

...................
Remedy #1 (traffic reduction) has proven universally impractical, and remedy #2 (demolition) is rare; but there are three other remedies, all more likley after a lawsuit:
#3 - Build something that complies with the standard.
#4 - Postpone building until the standard can be met.
#5 - Don’t build anything at all.


Re: the standard. You contradicted yourself in the same post. (Bolding mine).

#1. why is traffic reduction universally impractical? Does not Boston have a long-standing cap on parking spaces so that air quality standards can be attained?

#3. putting aside the non-existent standard, the source of the pollution is not the building or the deck, but cars, trucks, buses, and diesel railroad engines. You control pollution at the source.

#4. again putting aside the non-existent standard, this is simply a call for not building at all.

#5. a valid option, though it does nothing about the current and future pollution that apparently permeates your building.

Oh, and what the NRDC really wants for those freeways in southern California is to get some / all of those diesel trucks off the road.

Oh, and Ned, IMO if there ever is a UFP standard, it is rather probable that achieving the fine particulate standard will also result in achieving a UFP standard. It goes to the nature of controlling the current sources of concern for these particulates, which are diesel engines.

[BarbaricManchurian]

No one has said that any project must follow a standard that does not yet exist. But what I have said here, and what other corridor residents are saying elsewhere, is that because the public health risks from UFP exposure are well known, and because MTA’s ventilation scheme exacerbates those risks manifold, MTA and its business partners should identify the optimum solution and then provide it.


UFP was discovered — and the resulting public health risks were confirmed — before this project was proposed, so the City’s scope required the owners’ proposal to include UFP and the MTA’s vents. But both were omitted, so corridor residents couldn’t raise the issue, and the agencies received no public comments about it. So, no, the owners have not yet been required to mitigate this. But they still could be.


In Boston, promises that owners make just to get approvals are converted into the equivalent of legal requirements and written into multiple government agreements, such as this project’s MTA Development Agreement, MTA 99-Year Lease, and various public subsidy applications. Whether the “hermetically sealed” promise will be enforced remains to be seen.


The completed studies show that UFP is found in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.




Hmm, ever realized that busy highway that your living next to has UFP, no matter what? And that Europe uses mostly diesel and I don't see their life expectancy going down and their cancer rates going up? And that if UFP is found everywhere, you can't do anything about it. But that's not true, less UFP is found in suburban and rural areas where YOU CAN MOVE TO if you're scared for your health. Everyone in the InterContinental Hotel will die immediately, everyone will get nasty cancers which cause people painful deaths, people will choke to death on the UFP. UFP exists whether or not Columbus Center is built, if you're so worried about it then MOVE AWAY FROM THE PIKE, wow n00b.

[Suffolk 83]

I think Ned got the point.... I would have alot more respect for the man if he at least posted in other threads maybe then people would accept him

[TedG]

Another delay for Columbus Center?

South End News • Thursday, June 5, 2008 • by Managing Editor Linda Rodriguez • www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=75467

Even as the site of the massive Columbus Center remains a local eyesore, there’s another concern circulating the neighborhood: that the lease negotiated between the developers of the project and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority may allow for a 10-year delay in the construction of the luxury condominium project.

According to a proposed amendment to the lease that was approved by the MTA Board on Feb. 19, the developers of the project would be required to pay an escalating fee for each year that they don’t complete the rest of the project beyond the building of the deck over the turnpike. Though the amendment stipulates that the entire project must be completed by Dec. 21, 2012, a clause under section 6.2 indicates that “if Tenant elects to delay commencement of the Vertical Portion of the Project ... Tenant shall make the following payments.” Those payments are listed as $52,000 in the first year and grow to $598,000 in the 10th year.

“The question is, how many more exceptions would there be?” asked South End State Representative Byron Rushing. “[The developers] would be able to have a vacant deck for ten years, if they’re willing to pay for it.”

Mac Daniel, spokesman for the MTA, said that the MTA is more concerned about the developer’s recent request for an 18-month moratorium on construction. “That’s simply a provision that’s in that lease that addresses a situation that we’re nowhere near right now and don’t expect to be near,” he said. “Our concern is negotiating the next 18 months and everything else is secondary.”

Though construction on the Columbus Center project began in November 2007, the developers asked for an 18-month moratorium on construction, citing concerns about their finances and “capital structure” in late March. At that point, the lease amendments that included the 10-year payment schedule clause were withdrawn from the consideration of the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, an advisory committee to the MTA that reviews the agency’s lease and land use agreements. They were also never given to the Patrick administration for the necessary approval by the governor.

Since March, the construction site has seen minimal activity as the developers scramble to find funding in harsh economic times.

At a May 27 meeting with Bay Village residents facilitated by Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, MTA director Alan LeBovidge said that the MTA would be in talks with the developer around the 18-month moratorium request for another month. As yet, however, he said there had been no new developments with the project. During a June 4 meeting of the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, Stephen Hines of the MTA said that the agency was in discussions with the developers about the proposed moratorium and that they are “open to granting that period, as long as certain conditions are met.”

On the question of a 10-year delay in the completion of the project, Daniel said that small section is not high on the MTA’s list of concerns. “It hasn’t been adopted and it’s a very small part of a much larger agreement. Why this would be discussed or even a topic of concern when we’re negotiating this 18 month delay - it seems superfluous right now,” he said. “We’ll deal with it once we get past these current negotiations.”

Still, some critics of the behemoth project say the clause raises a red flag. Said Rushing, “There is nothing from our experience with this developer that would make us think that we’re not going to have an eyesore for another 10 years.”

[atlrvr]

Wait.....so building the deck creates and eyesore, but 6 lanes of turnpike plus rail is aesthetically preferable?

I would think that decking it and leaving the towers unbuilt for 10 years would make the neighbors estatic.....less noise without the added traffic and shadows.....of course, nothing is safe with killer UFP's around....

[kennedy]

heh.

[TedG]

Columbus builders seek delay

Boston Sunday Globe • June 8, 2008 • by Globe Correspondent Christina Pazzanese • http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/08/columbus_builders_seek_delay/

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/CortesStreetGlobeJune082008.jpg

Residents of Cortes Street say they have lost trees, parking, and use of a sidewalk as a result of the stalled project in the Back Bay and South End. (Christina Pazzanese for the Boston Globe)


Massachusetts Turnpike Authority officials say they expect to decide in the next few weeks whether to grant the developers of the Columbus Center project an 18-month construction delay.

The $800 million condominium, hotel, and retail complex, slated to be built on four parcels along the Mass. Pike in the South End and Back Bay, has been beset by development troubles since planning began in 1996.

“At this point, it’s totally a matter of financing,” said Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the Center’s development team of WinnDevelopment and MacFarlane Partners/CalPERS. The recent downturn in the economy, the state’s decision not to contribute millions in loans and grants, and “issues” with the Turnpike Authority over the lease led to the developer’s request in March for a hiatus, said Eisner. “Since then, all sides have been working diligently to try and piece this back together. The goal is to keep the door open,” he said.

On Wednesday, Stephen Hines, the turnpike’s chief development officer, told the Mass. Highway System Advisory Board that the project “is not proceeding at this moment in any significant way.” He said the authority is still in discussions with the developers over their request to delay the construction and was “hopeful” something could be worked out soon.

Hines said the authority was open to granting WinnDevelopment a delay provided certain conditions are met, such as making the streets and sidewalks around the 7-acre property safe and accessible to the public and freeing up parking spaces lost during construction.

“In the event they don’t proceed” with the project, the developer would be asked to restore the site to its prior condition, said Hines.

The board, which reviews and makes recommendations about the authority’s real estate deals, has asked to be kept informed about the terms of any delay agreement with the developers before it is signed.

Turnpike spokesman Mac Daniel said executive director Alan LeBovidge delivered a similar message to the Bay Village Neighborhood Association on May 27, but cautioned residents that talks could go on beyond the end of June.

“As far as financing and the project moving forward, we are waiting to hear back from the developers,” said Jessica Shumaker, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, in an e-mail. “They told us they needed a few more weeks to work through project details and financing sources and that they would come back to us with an update as soon as they had more info.”

After dozens of residents implored Mayor Thomas M. Menino in April to require the developer to secure the idle construction site and to clean up abutting streets during any project delay, the developers agreed to pay for workers from Project Place to regularly neaten the area surrounding the property.

Two weeks ago, the South End nonprofit, which helps homeless people find jobs and does similar street tidying in 13 Boston neighborhoods, began sending teams of between five and a dozen workers armed with brooms and dustbins to pick up debris and cigarette butts, and remove posters for two hours each weekday, said Suzanne Kenney, Project Place’s executive director.

Kenney said that although the arrangement is only temporary while the long-term fate of the project is hashed out, she hopes eventually they'll be hired on a permanent basis. “We don’t know how long this is going to happen,” said Kenney. “We’re just going to continue until we hear otherwise.”

The BRA plans to repair a hole in the fence on Cortes Street and has put up signs along Stanhope Street alerting passersby that local businesses are indeed open, said Shumaker.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Arborway]

Is the 18 month delay a moving target? Construction stopped months ago, so I'm not sure if it's 18 months from then, or 18 months from whenever the 18 month delay is approved.

[BostonSkyGuy]

This thread (and project) should be renamed "Columbus Center: A Lesson in Futility."

[TedG]

Source of concern

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/pub/5_342/teller/

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Source16-Jun-2008.jpg

[tobyjug]

Time to warm up the car for that trip to the "farm in New Hampshire".

[Lrfox]

But don't fret, CC will be much happier up there with all that room to romp and play and certainly no UFPs to hurt the tenants. Look on the bright side, there will always be that nice scar....er, gap that is the Pike to remind you of what could have been.

[briv]

Thanks for posting that TedG.

What is that rendering of? Cortes St?

[TedG]

The rendering in the newspaper article is from the 2003 proposal. It is of Cortes Street, looking West toward Berkeley Street. Columbus Center over parcel 18 is on the left.

[stellarfun]

Columbus Center looks to be a different kettle of fish than LandSource.

S&P Anticipates LandSource BankruptcySource: BIG BUILDER News
Publication date: 2008-04-30

By Teresa Burney

Standard & Poor's reported on April 29 that LandSource Communities Development is expected to file for bankruptcy protection within the next two to three weeks.

The ratings agency was told of the impending filing by the group's lenders following a private call, said analysts Abby Latour and Kerry Kantin in their report.

"A depletion of cash will likely prompt the filing next month," Latour and Kantin wrote. "The company's cash pile has dwindled to roughly $25 million, from about $115 million in early February."

By filing for protection from creditors in bankruptcy court, the company could preserve its remaining cash and start arranging to sell assets, sources told S&P.

LandSource's spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.
Last week, LandSource, a California-based land development company owned by MW Housing Partners, Lennar Corp., and LNR Properties, received a notice of default on its loan agreements.

Just over a year ago, LandSource took out $1.3 billion in loans arranged by Barclays to buy 68% of the company from Lennar and LNR, which each retained 16% interest. The first lien on the company for $1 billion is in default.

The notice came after LandSource missed a deadline to re-margin the deal made necessary because the land had lost value in the plummeting home building market.

Despite the notice, discussions on how to restructure the total of $1.3 billion in debt so the company can make the payments in the current market continued, Tamara Taylor, a LandSource spokesperson, said at the time.
S&P reported that there has been little communication between the company's sponsors and lenders recently, "raising the ire of lenders, who delivered a default notice after the most recent forbearance agreement expired on April 16."

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), which is part of MW Partners, said it was not willing to move forward with a credit-enhancement package for LandSource that included a $550 million commitment over three years, according to S&P.

"Lenders heard in an April 15 call that CalPERS's view is that the terms are no longer tenable," Latour and Kantin wrote.

Just last year, Lennar was lauded as masterful for finding a way pull cash out of land while still retaining rights to use it later when it sold off the lion's share of LandSource. Lennar and LNR Property each received about $700 million for selling off 68% of LandSource to MW Housing Partners, an entity co-managed by McFarlane Partners on behalf of CalPERS, and Weyerhaeuser.

MW Housing got 50% of the voting rights, while Lennar and LNR retained 16% ownership each and a combined 50% of the voting rights. Lennar also maintained access to the land for future construction and, in the meantime, would be paid "significant" management fees.

The deal was heralded as a perfect partnership. CalPERS is a long-term investor, valued for its patience in receiving returns. And it fit with Lennar's ongoing strategy to move more land--and its costs and risks--off its home building books.

At the time of the deal, LandSource's properties had a book value of about $1.3 billion. To fund the sale, $1.55 billion in debt was taken on the assumption that the land had more than doubled in value during the three years since LandSource's biggest asset, Newhall Land And Farming Co.'s 15,000 acres of mixed-use property 30 miles north of Los Angeles County, was bought.

LandSource's debt is labeled non-recourse, which is said to insulate Lennar and LNR from repercussions; but if the land ends up for sale in bankruptcy court, Lennar could lose access to the lots--one of the advantages it touted when announcing the sale last year.

Pali Capital analyst Stephen East suggested in a research note there is a possibility that the LandSource partners could be sued under "Bad Boy" clauses, claiming misrepresentations were made, since the deal deteriorated so rapidly.

"The bigger question for LEN is what remains for all the other JV's sitting out there," East wrote. "LandSource is one of the largest and most visible, but it could well be a harbinger of things to come. The cash burn so readily apparent in this JV is likely not unique."

If the bankruptcy occurs and the banks come out as well or better than they would have by renegotiating the loan, "We believe it would encourage a stiffer spine at the banks in future negotiations--signaling tougher times ahead for LEN and all other aggressive users of JV's," East wrote.

http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/industry-news-print.asp?sectionID=363&articleID=696870

A question is why, in 2007, would anyone think that was a golden time for building large residential communities in Southern California?

[whighlander]

I'd immediately send an emissary to Dubai

They used to say "Fly, Buy, Dubai" -- let's change it to "Fly, Sell Boston, Dubai"

I'd tell them -- we'll sell you the Pike from Copley Place to I-93 and including the "the Mother of All Interchanges" -- you build on it

Westy

[TedG]

No news on Columbus Center

South End News • Thursday, June 26, 2008 • by Managing Editor Linda Rodriguez • http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=76457

While the official word is that there is no news on the beleaguered Columbus Center project, residents around the now-stalled construction site are becoming increasingly frustrated.

“We feel like we’re running into a brick wall and no one really cares, no one really cares about what happens to Cortes Street,” said Artie Rice, a resident of the street and a member of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association. Cortes Street, a small street of brownstones, has overlooked the vast, empty site of the Columbus Center project since March of this year, when the project’s developers (a complicated partnership between the local Winn Development, investment group CalPERS and MacFarlane Partners) requested an 18-month moratorium on its construction.

Though various officials, from Mayor Thomas Menino to the head of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, have promised the residents that the Columbus Center situation will be sorted out shortly, Rice says he’s getting frustrated that nothing seems to be happening. Said Rice, “They think there are people here that really don’t count for much.”

In April, following the developers’ request for the construction moratorium, residents of Bay Village and Cortes Street played host to visits from Menino, District 2 City Councilor Bill Linehan, John Palmieri, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and other city officials, who all promised to rectify the situation. At a May 27 meeting with residents, Alan LeBovidge, director of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which leases the land to the developers, said that the MTA would make a decision on the moratorium request in about a month. During a June 4 meeting of the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, Stephen Hines of the MTA said that the agency was in discussions with the developers about the proposed moratorium and that they are “open to granting that period, as long as certain conditions are met.”

But MTA spokesman Mac Daniel said that there is nothing new to report on the situation. And residents of the street say that there has been little to no communication from any official sources about the giant construction pit, which is surrounded by green hurricane fencing, in their front yards.

“It’s been a month. Time keeps going along now. We’re getting the feeling that no one really cares about us now. There was the big show with the Mayor and Linehan ... [but] the site is still a pit,” said Rice. “No one’s responding to it at all and we just get a feeling here that’s the way its going to be. We’re just a handful of people.”

Though construction on the Columbus Center project began in November 2007, the developers asked for the 18-month moratorium on construction, citing concerns about their finances and “capital structure,” in late March. Since then, the construction site has seen minimal activity as the developers have scrambled to find funding for the $800 million project in harsh economic times. George Regan, acting spokesman for Winn Development, described the loss of funding as a “perfect storm of financing,” and said that the developer is still working on finding funding.

“It’s not going to be done overnight,” he said. Regan also said that he had no idea when the MTA may be issuing a decision on the requested moratorium. As far as the plight of the residents whose homes overlook the dormant construction site, he said, “We’re working on some plans right now. We’re very cognizant of the neighborhood concerns.”

Regan declined to provide details about what those plans might be, saying, “Obviously, we don’t want to speak without thinking, so, we’re working very hard on some ideas.”

In the meantime, the developers hired Project Place, a South End-based nonprofit that works with homeless and formerly homeless individuals, to do minimal clean up on the site. Councilor Linehan’s office has also been involved in trying to get resident parking signs put back on the street, but as yet, the signs have not gone up. While residents say that’s all a step in the right direction, it’s not enough.

“What are they going to do here to clean this place up and make it livable?” asked Rice. Moreover, he says, given the recent mismanagement around the project, he’s concerned that it is permanently stalled.

“Theoretically, there’s a chance it’ll never get built, it’ll just be sitting there and sitting there,” said Rice.

[KentXie]

People do care but there are people who are irrational that prevent any progress being made due to paranoia and whatnot.

[stellarfun]

Oh my goodness. This seems like more grasping at straws, or the same tired record. If they have most of the financing again in hand, they ought to say so. That would make the discussions about tax relief more meaningful.

The producers of American Pie are shooting a movie in Cambridge early next year titled The Harvard Zombie Massacre. Perhaps they ought to consider Columbus & Clarendon as a locale, given the living dead feel to this most recent supplication for help.


Columbus Center asks for boost of $40m

Says public funds could spur project

By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | July 3, 2008

The owners of the massive Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike have gone back to city and state officials to request as much as $40 million in public funding to try to resurrect one of Boston's most ambitious developments.

A spokesman for WinnDevelopment and its partners confirmed the Columbus team has held a series of meetings to push for additional taxpayer assistance, despite lingering controversy over public funds that have already been awarded. Officials briefed on the talks said the ownership has discussed the idea of creating a special development zone that would give developers tax relief to pay for a deck over the turnpike and other upgrades.

Columbus Center is intended to be a $800 million hotel, residential, and retail complex that would straddle the turnpike and reunite two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South Endborders Back Bay.

Construction of the long-planned project was halted abruptly in March after develop ers were unable to secure construction financing and about $35 million in state assistance. They now face an uphill battle to keep the project alive as capital markets have tightened and costs for fuel and building materials have soared. They have already sought to delay construction up to 18 months.

Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, said executives have been negotiating for months to try to revive Columbus Center, which went through 11 years of permitting and neighborhood opposition. Projects costs have nearly tripled. He confirmed that officials met last week with state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, to discuss ways to generate fresh public assistance.

"We've been meeting with various state and city officials to try to see what support is out there that can jumpstart the project once market conditions improve," said Eisner. "Anything and everything is on the table."

Eisner would not discuss specific proposals, but officials briefed on the talks, who were not authorized to comment on them publicly, said Columbus Center's owners have asked the city and state to consider designatingthe project a special development zone.

The arrangement, known as a District Improvement Financing agreement, allows developers to get an abatement on a portion of their future property tax bill now to pay for infrastructure upgrades.

Wilkerson did not return phone calls seeking comment. She has been a key supporter of Columbus Center on Beacon Hill, where a number of foes, including House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Representative Martha Walz, a Back Bay Democrat, have fiercelyopposed public funding for the project under the belief that the state should not be footing the bill for a private development.

WinnDevelopment is Columbus Center's managing partner in an ownership group that includes the California Public Employees Retirement System and MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. LLC, which invests in large urban projects nationwide. In 2007, construction financing fell through, delaying the project and raising questions about its viability. As a result, the state withdrew $20 million in potential job-creation grants, and the project never received $15 million in loans from MassHousing.

The prospect of a new tax relief plan drew contrasting reactions from the community.

"This is a great project to knit the city back together and it is critical to get some assistance for it," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties of Massachusetts, a business advocacy group that supports development incentives. "It does not have to be dead. If the developers can get a couple of years of breathing room, I wouldn't be surprised to see it back on the front burner."

But Walz said the project's survival should not be the public's responsibility. "This is another instance of the developer seeking relief from its financing problems with taxpayer money," she said. "It's not appropriate for taxpayers to be financing this project, and we've made that point to the developer time and again."

Overall, the public assistance being sought by the Columbus team is a small portion of the project's overall cost, but developers have made clear that the money is a crucial in tough economic times. Eisner said the project would produce public benefits, including four new parks, improvements to air quality in the MBTA's Back Bay Station, and better groundwater management in nearby neighborhoods that have struggled with flooding.

The City of Boston provided initial support for the project, including a package of tax deferrals, but officials said the city would be reluctant to grant further taxpayer assistance.

"We [will not] consider district improvement financing for this project," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm. "The city has already given [tax incentives] valued at $14 millionover the life of the project."

The developers are also trying to renegotiate a lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow for a construction delay of up to 18 months; the authority owns the space above the highway where the complex will be built. Mac Daniel, a turnpike spokesman, said the talks continue as it works with the developers to clean up the area surrounding the inactive construction zone.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/07/03/columbus_center_asks_for_boost_of_40m/

[type001]

Would some higher power please put this puppy to sleep once and for all?

[statler]

The thread or the project?

I vote for both.

They are both sickly reminders of better times with no hope for redemption.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm all for taking this puppy out back and putting it out of it's missery. The project and the thread.

[Ron Newman]

statler, does that mean you are for the proposed subsidy, or against it? I can't quite tell.

[type001]

The thread or the project?

Well, I was refering to the project, but this thread could certainly use some hibernation for a while (although it has been an exciting trainwreck of entertainment).

[TedG]

Back again for more

Boston Globe • July 4, 2008 • by Globe Columnist Adrian Walker • http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/07/04/back_again_for_more/

Real estate developers are a persistent lot. Especially when it comes to public money.

The Columbus Center project is a proposed $800 million hotel, retail, and condominium development at the border of the Back Bay and the South End.

It happens to be stalled. That is partly because the construction business is not so hot, and the market for high-end condos could be better, too.

But there’s another reason: The Patrick Administration backed off $20 million in public subsidies that had been promised by its predecessors.

That decision did not represent some big, brave stand. A piece of the project is in Sal DiMasi's district, and the speaker was not a fan. The project’s staunchest legislative advocate was state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who, at that moment, the Patrick people happened to be mad at. It was easy to say no.

But the developers, Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin, have resurfaced. They’re back asking for the same money that was taken away less than a year ago.

To be fair, the project has its merits. It would be built in an area that certainly has room for improvement. It would create jobs, though, as with all projects of this type, just how many jobs is disputed. And, in developer’s parlance, it would “knit together” the South End and the Back Bay. That rationale was also used to sell Copley Place in the 1970s, and before that, the Prudential Center. Apparently, we are anxious as a city not to leave any holes between neighbors.

The developers are under considerable pressure. When their public subsidies were withdrawn, the project’s financing collapsed. The land for Columbus Center is leased from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority - it is to be built over the Pike - and those leases require action within a given time frame. But nothing is happening, and nothing is on the horizon.

Ah, but help could be on the way. The exact amount the developers are seeking is unknown, though it is definitely north of the $20 million they would have settled for previously. You don't get to be a big developer like Winn without an extra helping of chutzpah.

I have been critical in the past of pouring tens of millions of dollars of public money into what is, essentially, a project for rich people. But the developers, of course, don't see it that way.

One person close to the project explained that even though market conditions are plainly unfavorable now, it isn’t surprising that the developers are trying to make a deal.

“Even if there were a plan in place, they wouldn’t move forward now, because the market wouldn’t justify that,” he said. “The idea is to get some kind of workable agreement with the state, something that both sides can live with, so when the market turns around, instead of beginning the process, you can be ahead of the curve.”

The official also pointed out, correctly, that public subsidies for big-ticket developments are far from unheard of. The arguments are always the same in those instances, that the public still benefits and that, over time, the project will be worth it in jobs and tax revenue.

But what about all the other things government can do with $20 million or more?

Columbus Center is not a bad project. But it is a terrible choice for spending massive amounts of public money that could go to so many more valid uses. Boston is not exactly short of pricey condominiums or hotels. Why should the public subsidize building a few more? If the developers have a good answer to that question, they’ve kept it to themselves, and people have been asking for more than a decade.

The state should stick to its guns and say no to a big handout for Columbus Center. If Columbus Center is the godsend it is cracked up to be, it will eventually get built anyway.

Even if state officials refuse to kick in public money now, they should brace themselves for more requests in the future. These guys keep asking until someone says yes.

[Suffolk 83]

At this point everyone involved is an asshole and they all deserve whats coming to them.

[Lurker]

All the BANANAs, crooked politicians, dishonest lenders, lawyers, and Winn's bad PR department that held this project up to death deserve a flogging.

[stellarfun]

All the BANANAs, crooked politicians, dishonest lenders, lawyers, and Winn's bad PR department that held this project up to death deserve a flogging.
Alan Eisner who is the spokesperson for Winn-Cassin, is also the spokesperson for Battery Wharf. I don't know for certain, but an Alan Eisner was also managing editor of the Herald.

[Ned Flaherty]

Wilkerson says she's
not seeking public funds for stalled project

Banker & Tradesman, 07 July 2008

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Wilkerson.jpg

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/pub/5_345/commercial/200266-1.html

[tobyjug]

Thanks, Ned. I had to chuckle seeing Winn's wife in a "glamour" photo in the Herald gossip page last week at the same time that hubby was trying to go on the public dole. Who does their publicity, Louis Seizieme?

[Ned Flaherty]

Updates on 4 of Columbus Center’s business partners

ALAN EISNER • California’s Columbus Center company pays Regan Communication Group’s Alan Eisner to speak for the project. Eisner is Massachusetts Hospitality Association’s Executive Director. He formerly held the positions of Reporter, Commentator, Education Editor, Managing Editor, and Editor-in-Chief — all for the Boston Herald.

SENATOR WILKERSON • For years, Senator Dianne Wilkerson has worked for Columbus Center, arguing that it would “make” hundreds of permanent jobs, and thousands of temporary jobs, for people inside her District and inside Boston’s HUD-sponsored poverty zone.

She helped re-draw HUD’s poverty zone to include the turnpike from Allston to I-93, Back Bay, South End, and Bay Village as Boston’s new official “poverty” zone, which got the project a $35 million federal-tax-free bond loan.

Wilkerson spent years negotiating a secret contract between Columbus Center and the poverty zone. Officials signed the contract last summer, but both Wilkerson and the poverty zone Board still refuse to let the public read it.

Most notable: although construction began in October 2007, Columbus Center never hired even one person from Wilkerson’s District, or from the poverty zone.

If the only bail-outs Wilkerson is now working on are ones that cost taxpayers nothing, then her efforts will fail, because there is no such thing. Taxpayers pay for all bail-outs, especially to projects in Columbus Center’s condition, and in markets such as today’s.

The project needs a bail-out because its new owners and the commercial world have abandoned it, and the only way to finance such an orphan is with dollars already pulled from taxpayer pockets.

ANGLO IRISH BANK • Some forum members claimed that Columbus Center will still get its loan from the $95 billion Anglo Irish Bank — “just as soon as the market improves.”

If the bank ever had any hope of doing so, that chance is all but gone now. As one of the few U.S. financial institutions focused solely on commercial finance, a rare specialty, Anglo Irish is in trouble.

• Last week Standard & Poor’s gave Anglo Irish Bank an outlook rating of “negative.”
• Citigroup recently downgraded Anglo Irish, with a recommendation of “sell.”
• Anglo Irish declined to comment.

In May 2006, Columbus Center paid the bank $25,000 for a form letter that could be attached to subsidy applications. California’s Boston-based managers claimed the loan in their 2005, 2006, and 2007 Massachusetts public subsidy applications, specifically naming Anglo Irish as Columbus Center’s commercial bank lender. Neither government nor media ever checked to see if the loan even existed, so all the right people got fooled — until the MTA accidentally disclosed the secret during a routine public records request.

But Columbus Center never met the bank’s borrowing requirements, the theoretical loan described in the bank’s May 2006 form letter expired four months later, and it was never renewed, revised, or replaced.

Thus, bank financing did not “fall through” as is commonly reported in the media, and repeated on this forum. There was nothing to fall through, as no loan was issued, approved, or even applied for. And that was when economic conditions were frothy.

CalPERS-CUIP-MURC • At the end of 2007, the nation’s biggest pension fund had $24 billion invested in real estate. But with new home sale rates at their lowest point in 17 years, CalPERS lost confidence in seven of its joint venture real estate investments. Columbus Center is one of CalPERS’ joint venture investments.

Not comfortable taking any more advice from its thousands of employees, CalPERS engaged global financial services firm Morgan Stanley to recommend what to do. Morgan Stanley’s advice to CalPERS can be inferred from what happened next.
• Columbus Center halted construction.
• Previously agreed upon funding wasn’t disbursed.
• Four months later, funds are still being withheld.
• Similar CalPERS decisions just drove another of its projects into bankruptcy. CalPERS chose to lose most of its nearly $1 billion investment because — having already lost plenty — the best way to not lose any more was to force its own project to go belly up.
• Between 27 May and 2 July alone, CalPERS lost $12 billion.
• Last month, CalPERS’ local managers in Boston began shopping — for other pension funds.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^Uh oh, look who's wasting precious forum resources.

[atlrvr]

We provide letters confirming equity commitments to anyone who asks.....we just leave plenty of outs in the LOI so that either party can walk away.....hell, we don't even fully model deals before providing these equity commitments.

The developers then use our commitment letters to go get their public funding, and come back to us to see if we are truly interested once their get their funding.

This is no secret negotiations involved. A developer has to pick up the phone, call us, and send us a general pro forma. We don't normally issue a press release each time we do this.

And of course it expires before conditions are met. As described above, that is the intent of these LOIs, to protect both parties, and to help the developer to secure public funding. Why should any bank put themselves on the hook until the entire financing package is secured?

Also, how does a unbuilt building secretly negotiate with a federally defined zone?

[Ned Flaherty]

We provide letters confirming equity commitments to anyone who asks . . .
You don’t identify who you mean by “we”, so whatever point you’re trying to make isn’t quite clear. But Columbus Center’s Anglo Irish letter wasn’t an “equity commitment letter”. Instead, it was an offer to allow the owners to apply for and maybe receive a construction loan, if they met 19 pages of requirements, which they never did.

Also, are you saying that your organization just gives an “equity commitment letter” to anybody who wants one? If so, what organization is that? And if your organization sells such letters, as Anglo Irish does, then how does your fee compare to Anglo Irish’s $25,000?

. . . This is no secret negotiations involved. . .
No one said that the Columbus Center’s equity commitment letter negotiations were secret, so again, whatever point you’re trying to make isn’t quite clear.

. . . Also, how does a unbuilt building secretly negotiate with a federally defined zone?
It doesn’t. Neither buildings nor poverty zones ever negotiate anything, because an unbuilt building does not exist, and because a zone is only an inanimate, abstract concept expressed as boundaries on a map.

In the situation being discussed here, managers working for the owners of California’s Columbus Center negotiated with members of the HUD-sponsored poverty zone’s Board of Directors. The 2005-2006-2007 negotiations were kept secret, as was the 2007 outcome. As of July 2008, the contract’s contents remain secret.

But several things became clear over the last year.

● Federal officials at HUD deny having any copies of the contract.
● City redevelopment officials also deny having any copies.
● The poverty zone executive director, when asked, admits to the existence of the contract that Wilkerson negotiated for Columbus Center, but then denies having a copy, saying all copies were moved “out of our custody”.
● Among the poverty zone’s Board of Directors, those who do have a copy of the signed contract refuse to release it — even to their fellow Directors.
● Managers for California’s Columbus Center refuse all inquiries about it.

There’s no way to know if anything Senator Wilkerson promised the public ever made it into that contract. But residents of her district and the poverty zone know this: they were promised jobs, and none of them got hired.

[atlrvr]

"We", is the company I work for, who's identity is not revealed because specifically, my particular views on the variety of projects I post about may or may not coincide with my employer's views. I have no financial incentive in this project at the moment, as we have not been approached by the developers at this point.

And yes, I'm saying we give an equity commitment letter to almost anyone that provides anything resembling a financially feasible development. It is in every lenders best interest to provide such loosely-binding commitments if they are considering lending on a particular project, because the greater the public subsidy/funding, the less leveraged hard debt there is, which means less chance of foreclosure.

Do I charge $25k as an upfront fee? I don't think we ever have, but it could be reasonable if a substantial amount of diligence is involved to produce the required commitment letter. You can guarantee however, that I will include a fee to cover our work in providing that letter plus a nice premium if we actually end up lending on a deal.

My main point is, you continue to act as if every aspect of this deal is shrouded in secrecy, and only through your hard diligence, have you uncovered shocking revelations about this project. I contend that nothing you have presented as part of their financing scheme, or legal partnership structures is even noteworthy different than the dozens of deals I analyze on an annual basis, many of which include some form of public subsidy.

What makes this deal different is the scale, and the fact that it's in your back yard.

[Beton Brut]

Hi Ned --

When I made this post (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=49351&postcount=530) back in April (here's your reply (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=49387&postcount=543)), I was referring to a larger, peer-reviewed epidemiological study, using longitudinal data on an array of respiratory ailments and cancers overlaid with a map of UFP pollution across all of Logan's flight paths (in the case of your neighborhood, from Runway 9/27).

WBZ-TV just ran this this report (http://wbztv.com/health/Logan.Airport.Cancer.2.767855.html).

Any thoughts?

[stellarfun]

Hi Ned --

When I made this post (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=49351&postcount=530) back in April (here's your reply (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=49387&postcount=543)), I was referring to a larger, peer-reviewed epidemiological study, using longitudinal data on an array of respiratory ailments and cancers overlaid with a map of UFP pollution across all of Logan's flight paths (in the case of your neighborhood, from Runway 9/27).

WBZ-TV just ran this this report (http://wbztv.com/health/Logan.Airport.Cancer.2.767855.html).

Any thoughts?


I'll opine. WBZ starts its story in Winthrop -- low planes skimming over rooftops -- yet then doesn't list Winthrop as a community with higher morbidity rates. The presumption that I draw is that Winthrop didn't fit the selective data set they were using to build a story. IMO, if you were doing a epidemiological study of health effects of an airport, you'd start with airport workers, particularly ramp workers, field maintenance workers, etc. They'd have the highest exposure rates of all.

[Beton Brut]

^^ Good point on the ramp workers, but also consider that their exposure is at best 8 hours a day, and none of them are exposed to jets at take-off, or a line of 15-20 jet aircraft idling on a taxiway prior to take-off.

The point I'm trying to make here is, with or without Columbus Center, Ned and his neighbors may be exposed to some other risk-factors. No one's gonna mistake Joe Shortsleeve for Ed Murrow, but if the state Health Department has been running a study for a decade, it's something that deserves some attention.

And though the report references Winthrop and low-level overflights, all of the footage in WBZ's report was shot in Orient Heights, less than a quarter mile from my home. The only overflight of Winthrop is via water approached/departures on runway 9/27, over Point Shirley.

I imagine van's gonna split this discussion off -- I hope Ned posts, and follows the discussion, as this is a subject I believe is important to him.

[pelhamhall]

Let's all take a step back and look at this project from a distance...

It is quickly becoming a reality that building over the Mass Pike is financially infeasible without massive public support. See the Prudential Center and Copley Place.

Let's opine that Columbus Center fails - which I can't see happening. It's ready to go and some other developer (with this kind of experience) can pick up the reigns and easily run with it once the market comes around .

But - let's pretend Columbus Center fails. It's failure will only solidify the view that the Turnpike air-rights are not build-able.

Now, the huge waste of money/time/resources known as the "Turnpike Air Rights Master Plan" will have to be discarded. Every developer from coast-to-coast will now say "you can't do business there - even if they offer you grants, they'll just yank them away. The neighbors are nuts, the costs are too high, and it's just not worth it."

The traffic sewer will remain, the MTA will continue on its march towards bankruptcy and then one day a politician will hold a press conference on the Dartmouth Street bridge and call for massive public subsidy to deck the pike - hundreds of millions of dollars to get the highway scar repaired. In exchange? Developers will be allowed to build even more massive, dense, and ultimately profitable developments.

The Mass Pike Air Rights Master Plan? A laughable little exercise to keep the population feeling like they are involved. Throw it out. It won't work, and at this point will just be a silly dream of 20 years past. In 2018, we will come to the conclusion that our tax money is going to be needed to do what private developers would have done for us. So we'll have to deck and prepare the parcels before a developer will be dumb enough to do business there.

This is why everyone - the city, the MTA, the BRA - wants Columbus Center to work. It's failure will become the failure of all Mass Pike air rights development.

So, looking long-term, Columbus Center's failure will be to the advantage of all future air rights developers - ironic. It will destroy all of the credibility and bargaining power that the MTA currently has in these situations.

[JimboJones]

Well, the appropriate person to ask about air rights development is Mr Rosenthal, then. If he can build down the Pike without public finances, then it would mean perhaps that others should be able to, as well.

[statler]

The only thing Mr Rosenthal has built above the Pike so far is a billboard.

[Ned Flaherty]

Federal and state agencies tackling I-90 particulate matter ● As I’ve been urging and predicting for the last year, federal and state agencies soon will be measuring the public health risks to Boston residents whose jobs or homes expose them to coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate matter.

U.S. NIH studying particulate matter from Columbus Center to South Bay ● On 18 June 2008, the U.S. National Institutes of Health awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University to collect specific data along the I-90/I-93 corridors that would more closely estimate illness and death rates nationwide. In particular, the grant will study particulate matter air pollution stretching from the Columbus Center site to I-93.

This grant was awarded because the large and growing body of scientific evidence shows that EPA’s current regulatory levels don’t include the ambient pollution that’s most harmful, and because evidence shows that people working or living within a few blocks of I-90/I-93 suffer more hazardous exposure than indicated by regional pollution averages. It’s already known that ultrafine particulate matter (which is not yet regulated) is more harmful to public health than coarse or fine particulate matter (which is regulated), but MTA has never disclosed how much worse is the ultrafine matter air coming from MTA’s corridors today (compared to coarse and fine particulate matter), versus how much worse it will be when exhausted in concentrated form through vents that are existing, underway, or planned. Now the NIH is addressing that gap.

Mass. Department of Public Health mapping and measuring particulate matter ● Next week the state legislature is expected to pass a new law requiring the Department of Public Health to map pollution locations, comprehensively assess the health impacts, and evaluate health risks within various populations. The new law appears to cover illness rates in communities affected by Logan Airport, as well as illness among people who work or live in communities along the I-90/I-93 corridors.

Forum reactions ● Many of the apologists for the real estate industry are likely to dismiss both efforts, because their interests are more narrowly focused on their own immediate profit pockets than on public health. But for society at large, and especially anyone who works or lives near the corridors, nothing should be built unless it addresses the findings from these two agencies.

[Beton Brut]

The new law appears to cover illness rates in communities affected by Logan Airport...

...But for society at large, and especially anyone who works or lives near the corridors, nothing should be built unless it addresses the findings from these two agencies.

^^ Thanks Ned -- You're sounding an awful lot like an opponent of Logan's center-field taxiway. A shame you didn't raise your voice ten years ago; the project is currently under construction.

[stellarfun]

Federal and state agencies tackling I-90 particulate matter ● As I’ve been urging and predicting for the last year, federal and state agencies soon will be measuring the public health risks to Boston residents whose jobs or homes expose them to coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate matter.

U.S. EPA studying particulate matter from Columbus Center to South Bay ● On 18 June 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University to collect specific data along the I-90/I-93 corridors that would more closely estimate illness and death rates nationwide. In particular, the grant will study particulate matter air pollution stretching from the Columbus Center site to I-93.

This grant was awarded because the large and growing body of scientific evidence shows that EPA’s current regulatory levels don’t include the ambient pollution that’s most harmful, and because evidence shows that people working or living within a few blocks of I-90/I-93 suffer more hazardous exposure than indicated by regional pollution averages. It’s already known that ultrafine particulate matter (which is not yet regulated) is more harmful to public health than coarse or fine particulate matter (which is regulated), but MTA has never disclosed how much worse is the ultrafine matter air coming from MTA’s corridors today (compared to coarse and fine particulate matter), versus how much worse it will be when exhausted in concentrated form through vents that are existing, underway, or planned. Now the EPA is addressing that gap.

Mass. Department of Public Health mapping and measuring particulate matter ● Next week the state legislature is expected to pass a new law requiring the Department of Public Health to map pollution locations, comprehensively assess the health impacts, and evaluate health risks within various populations. The new law appears to cover illness rates in communities affected by Logan Airport, as well as illness among people who work or live in communities along the I-90/I-93 corridors.

Forum reactions ● Many of the apologists for the real estate industry are likely to dismiss both efforts, because their interests are more narrowly focused on their own immediate profit pockets than on public health. But for society at large, and especially anyone who works or lives near the corridors, nothing should be built unless it addresses the findings from these two agencies.

Ned, cease the editorializing and get your facts correct.

There is no EPA grant, it is a NIH grant. The study area is far broader then your neighborhood.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112138.php

[statler]

Forum reactions ● Many of the apologists for the real estate industry are likely to dismiss both efforts, because their interests are more narrowly focused on their own immediate profit pockets than on public health.

You are implying that the members of this forum are "real estate industry apologists".
This has been proven false time (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2008) and time again (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1835). Please stop.

[pelhamhall]

Rosenthal has built nothing - in about a decade - with his air rights. His plan now includes putting (drum roll please) concrete parking garages over the pike. The buildings are in the vacant parking lots.

Remember Boylston Square? How'd that go? - and again, the revenue-producing tower was placed on flat land next to the highway.

Hmmm... wasn't the master plan completed in 1999? Almost ten years later has the traffic sewer been covered? Anywhere? Even the developments on the little ramps downtown can't make a go of it, and they only have to build on much smaller bridge-decks.

If Columbus Center fails, the word in the investment community will be loud and clear - you can't build on the Pike, ever, don't bother.

The MTA is desperate to make this work - air rights is their holy grail - they can't make tolls $5 in Allston and raise other tolls to $15 - there's a limit until we're all driving on Route 9.

This is why Columbus Center -maybe with a different developer - will happen as planned. If they can't make a go of it with Winn, they'll elbow him out and bring in a Hines or Boston Properties, or somebody with the sophistication and portfolio to complete the job. But it'll get done - as is.

The don't-block-my-view-elitists may think they're onto something with this UFP angle, but to the rest of us it's just good for a laugh. Yeah, it's a city, the air is "city-like" we know.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . wasn't the master plan completed in 1999?

No, it wasn’t. After it was adopted in 2000, the Turnpike Master Plan’s first full year was 2001.

. . . If Columbus Center fails, the word in the investment community will be loud and clear - you can't build on the Pike, ever, don't bother.

No, it won’t be. By the time that Columbus Center’s failure becomes official (a few more years hence), there will be two words in the investment community (but not what you assume):
• DO imitate John Rosenthal’s business practices, because he succeeded.
• DON’T forget that CalPERS-CUIP-MURC’s losses proved that due diligence is critical.

. . . If they can't make a go of it with Winn, they'll elbow him out . . .
Winn sold Columbus Center — both the proposal and the company — on 15 March 2006, so the person you imagine “elbowing out” has been gone for 2.25 years already. Several of the former owners now are contractors to the new owners, who already call all the shots, so no elbowing is necessary.

. . . The don't-block-my-view-elitists may think they're onto something with this UFP angle . . .
No one on this forum, or anywhere else in Boston, is criticizing Columbus Center for blocked views. And no one ever did. It seems you got your proposals mixed up.

The existence of particulate matter air pollution — and the public health impacts, and the maps of the affected communities along both corridors — are all being addressed now by U.S. NIH and Mass. DPH. For anyone who still doubts, they’ll soon confirm that particulate matter is far more than an “angle”.

[Ned Flaherty]

You are implying that the members of this forum are "real estate industry apologists". This has been proven false . . .
Don’t be upset; there’s nothing to worry about; re-read, and you’ll see: I never implied anything at all about the forum members (meaning all of them), because the forum is diverse groups of hobbyists, students, urban planners, real estate industry gravy-trainers, and others. What I did imply is that among the apologists, many of them will dismiss the new particulate matter studies (just as they have always done).

If you have any trouble spotting who I mean, look for the ones who:

defend Columbus Center unilaterally;
insist that everything’s just fine;
deny that anything is wrong;
do not care that the subsidy applications are fraudulent;
forget that over 13 years no banker loaned even one dollar;
still refer to what transpired last October - March as “construction”;
and
dismiss the empty work site as nothing more than a mere “market” blip.

[bosdevelopment]

I think most everyone defends Columbus Center unilaterally. The project epitomizes the urbanity that archboston forum members seek out. It's clear that you're simply a south end [person] on a mission, the goal of which is clearly clouded by confounded personal reasons.

[atlantaden]

Don’t be upset; there’s nothing to worry about; re-read, and you’ll see: I never implied anything at all about the forum members (meaning all of them), because the forum is diverse groups of hobbyists, students, urban planners, real estate industry gravy-trainers, and others. What I did imply is that among the apologists, many of them will dismiss the new particulate matter studies (just as they have always done).

If you have any trouble spotting who I mean, look for the ones who:

defend Columbus Center unilaterally;
insist that everything’s just fine;
deny that anything is wrong;
do not care that the subsidy applications are fraudulent;
forget that over 13 years no banker loaned even one dollar;
still refer to what transpired last October - March as “construction”;
and
dismiss the empty work site as nothing more than a mere “market” blip.


There are two phrases that come to mind here, the first is.."don't shoot the messenger." After reading post after endless post from Ned, I totally understand why this happened in ancient times. Especially when the messenger.... gloated. The second..."dancing on the grave," can also conjer up images that are more unpleasant as the one who has recently been buried.

[tobyjug]

Winn, Stat and Ned:

The juxtaposition of "Forum Reactions" and "apologists" makes it look like Ned was slamming our crew. The people who post here seem real; I can't name anyone who is false.

Mr. Developer Winn, looks like you can't get it done. Your wheedling for more public cash, that shows its time for you to go.

There's nothing wrong with putting up money, but what's our vig? There are folks out there suffering, who need education, who need cops so kids aren't getting shot in some drive by. Winn, you've got to put up more than more house maid jobs and bigger rags for shoeshine boys. Otherwise, make way.

If you've got a good deal for us, Winn shout it out now. If not, Toby will loan you a harmonica and an old tin cup. Go sing yer blues somewhere else.

Toby

[JimboJones]

Well, I have to say, I defend this project unilaterally, that much is true. It is not for selfish reasons, although some people have argued otherwise (including Mr Flaherty, himself, in a phone call to me, several months ago).

I don't plan on selling a unit in any building ever built on that spot; and, if I do, it offends me that someone would think I'd let my opinion be biased due to a paycheck of $10 or $20 thousand dollars.

I support just about every development project. To me, it's more like "Yes, let's build it, tell me why we shouldn't," unlike some people in this town whose first response is always, "No," and leave it at that, without any reasonable explanation except they wish the downtown Boston neighborhoods to remain the way they looked over a hundred and thirty years ago.

At times I, and perhaps other pro-development people, can be rightly accused of "unilateral" reactions. I just feel that I put a lot more thought into seeing the "other side" than the "other side" does my side.

w/e, you know what I mean.

[a630]

oh and the problem will be so effectively mitigated: for example, by ubiquitous ominous signage!

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3050/casignte4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

i have to say, it hasn't kept me out of parking garages, because i need to park, though gas prices did work, though that only led me to run into these signs in transit stations. it didn't keep me away from work because i need to work, or my friend's apartment building (there's a rumor it was constructed before 1980). thankfully i'm out of grade school, so i haven't had to think of the perils of walking those halls. it hasn't kept me out of the library. not LAX. though maybe if they put a giant one on the sun it'd keep me off the beach?
maybe the sun would get a categorical exemption because fine particulates have in fact had a dimming effect ...? limiting the impact without changing the nature of the use, i think that's how CEQA puts it.
anyway, i figure it all works out in the end. everyone who loses a job in real estate can work for an environmental consultant writing EIRs fatter than a phone book or getting people to sign props for more signs.

[Ned Flaherty]

Wilkerson: Columbus Center not seeking public subsidy

by Linda Rodriguez ● managing editor ● Thursday Jul 10, 2008

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=77215

The developers of the Columbus Center are not seeking public subsidy to jumpstart the stalled project, State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson told South End News July 9.

Wilkerson said that she’s been meeting with the developers of the massive project since they requested an 18-month moratorium construction from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the holders of the land lease, in March. At no point have they discussed additional public subsidy for the project, she said. “My considerations have been ’What are we going to? Is there a remedy? Is there an answer? Is there a way to get back on track?’” she said. “If there is, we should know soon and if there isn’t, we should know sooner.”

On July 2, the Boston Globe published an article indicating that the developers of the Columbus Center were in meetings with Wilkerson to “push for additional taxpayer assistance” for the project. Alan Eisner, longtime spokesman for the developers, confirmed to the Globe that developers were meeting with Wilkerson to discuss public subsidy; the reporter was unable to reach Wilkerson. However, a July 7 Banker & Tradesman article quoted Wilkerson, who said that the developers were not discussing possible public subsidies with her. In that article, Eisner is quoted as saying that meetings with Wilkerson did not focus on any more taxpayer assistance.

Contacted on July 8, Eisner said that in the wake of the two recent articles, the developers are no longer commenting. “What’s happened because of all these articles, I think the developers at this point really aren’t going to comment in the press any more,” he said. “There’s been a lot of distortion of our positions; for the time being our standard response is going to be, ’No comment.’”

Wilkerson, speaking to the South End News, said that discussions with the developers have been about how the developers can “shore up” and how they can move forward in a way that doesn’t require the city or the state “to write a big check.” “There has been what I think an aggressive series of discussions on both the city and state level, but it hasn’t been about how we can get more money,” she said.

The Columbus Center project was proposed more than a decade ago, as a way to reunite the South End and Back Bay. At that time, the cost of the luxury condominium-hotel high-rise complex, to be built on a deck constructed over the Turnpike was an estimated $300 million; since then, the rising cost of construction has inflated the cost to more than $800 million. Wilkerson lays some of the blame for the delay - and therefore continually increasing price - with the Turnpike Authority. As of now, the Turnpike’s lease with the Columbus Center developers remains in limbo after the moratorium caused several amendments to it to be withdrawn from consideration. Over the course of the project’s lifetime, the Turnpike Authority also saw three different directors overseeing lease negotiations.

“This dramatic increase in the project cost over the last few years has come as a result of the musical chairs at Mass Turnpike. They are all critical players, but we’ve gone through three directors,” she said. “There’s been little focus at the helm.”

Wilkerson said that she believes the focus right now is figuring out whether or not the project will be able to take off, adding that she thinks developers are close to an answer. “I think this limbo ... is just unfair,” she said, especially to the residents of the streets surrounding the project. “I think [the residents have] been incredibly patient for the duration of this project, but I think they’re growing increasingly anxious while we try to figure out what’s going on.”

Residents have been anxious about the seeming inaction on the site; in a June 26 South End News article, one resident said that he felt as if the city and state didn’t care about the people on his street (see “No News on Columbus Center,” June 26). Though construction on the Columbus Center project began in November 2007, the developers asked for the 18-month moratorium on construction in late March, citing concerns about their finances and “capital structure.” Since then, the construction site, swathed in green hurricane fencing, has been virtually abandoned, as the developers have scrambled to find funding for the $800 million project in harsh economic times.

At a May 27 meeting with the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, Turnpike Authority director Alan LeBovidge told residents that the Turnpike would be making a decision on whether or not to grant the construction moratorium within a month. Mac Daniel, spokesman for the Turnpike Authority, said that the Turnpike is still in talks with the developers over the terms of the moratorium.

“Alan LeBovidge said he hoped to get back to [the Bay Village residents] within a month with an answer and obviously, negotiations have not allowed us to do that yet,” he said, adding that the Turnpike is hopeful that the project will recover.

In the mean time, a few clean up efforts on the street have already been realized, although Cortes Street residents have reported recently that the site is becoming a de facto dump for local trash. The developers are still employing Project Place, the South End-based nonprofit that provides jobs for homeless and formerly homeless individuals, to keep the site clean. A resident parking only sign, another concern of the residents, will also be restored to the street this week, according to the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Eisner declined to comment on any clean up or mitigation efforts the developers may be undertaking for the residents of Cortes and Isabella streets, adding that they won’t comment “until there’s something constructive to say.”

[Ned Flaherty]

Ousted chief’s love of huge deals yielded big flop

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1106826

By Scott Van Voorhis ● Monday, July 14, 2008

Business Reporter Scott Van Voorhis brings 15 years of aggressive reporting to a wide range of topics that affect the Hub's business community and residents.

Developers like to build big. But the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority would probably do better to think small when it comes to its ambitious air-rights development plans, critics say.

The cash-strapped highway authority has spent years working with an array of developers to build grand projects over key stretches of the Turnpike’s canyon-like Boston extension.

But the Turnpike has little to show for its efforts. And that is prompting some real estate executives to question the authority’s strategy.

Overall, the Turnpike has spent too much time focusing on complicated, big-ticket projects, and too little time on smaller, more manageable ventures that might have produced quicker returns.

The most glaring example is former Turnpike chief Matt Amorello’s proposal for a massive skyscraper complex on authority-owned land near South Station.

Dubbing it “South Bay,” the Turnpike in 2004 put out to bid its Kneeland Street headquarters and neighboring highway-crossed sites for more than $100 million.

The former Pike chief - ousted two years later after the deadly collapse of a Big Dig tunnel - even unveiled a splashy plan for a 50-story tower and millions of square feet of new development on the site.

But as they played up South Bay, Amorello and other Pike officials kept developers seeking to build on other, authority-owned lots near North Station cooling their heels for years.

In the end, it was the so-called Bulfinch Triangle sites that paid off, with one complex now under construction and others on the way.

But South Bay turned out to be an embarrassing flop, attracting just one bidder with no mega-development experience. No deal was ever struck and the Turnpike at the moment has no plans to put the site back out to bid, said Mac Daniel, the Pike’s spokesman.

“They worked on that South Bay plan. I thought it was foolish,” said David Begelfer, head of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. “That project is a future project. The market is not there yet.”

The Turnpike has also spent years on plans for other giant air-rights projects that show no signs of returns any time soon.

Despite past failures, the Turnpike is forging ahead with its efforts to turn air-rights development sites in Boston into cash.

For example, the Turnpike is now preparing to put out to bid a pair of small air-rights parcels in Charlestown, as well as retail space in a new garage near Government Center.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^Oh, the horror of UFPs in the Bullfinch Triangle, people will fall over dead after breathing just a whiff of the toxic air.

[KentXie]

Scott points out one important point, that Boston lacks ambitious developers that gets thing done. I believe that, in most other big cities, projects of these magnitude can be done more quickly an yield more result than any small projects. Sadly, Boston's slow process and the enormous power that NIMBYs hold prevent any developers, no matter how ambitious and experienced, from coming to Boston and building something worthwile. It's like a curse. Before you know it, the curse will last longer than the Curse of the Bambino. Maybe we will get a real skyscraper 86 years after the JHT was built.

[kz1000ps]

^^Oh, the horror of UFPs in the Bullfinch Triangle, people will fall over dead after breathing just a whiff of the toxic air.

Are you going to make posts like this every time Ned posts something? There has been no mention of UFPs in his last four posts (perhaps a record for him?) and yet that's the first thing you mention. It seems knee-jerk at this point, not to mention incredibly juvenile.

So please, if you have nothing constructive to add to your heckling, then I respectfully suggest you shut your cakehole. it's not helping things.

[whighlander]

DFX -- its just a matter of time -- Big in Boston takes a lot of time

To whit some examples:
1) Pru, followed by the re-Pru, followed by Belvedere and the Alien (111 Huntington)

2) Copley Place now perhaps to be followed by re-do of Copley Place

3) South Station to be followed by re-do South Station

4) North Station and Boston Garden to be followed by new Boston Garden and .....

5) Logan followed by new Logan -- somewhat different timetable because its all Massport

Over the decades the really Big get's done in Boston in some fashion -- just not in a NY minute

Westy

[KentXie]

^^I just have to laugh at the last comment. Yeah I agree that the bigs to get done but taking a decade or decades for it to be constructed is frustrating. Not to mention that some of these projects that took a decade wasn't even complex or big (aka 1 Lincoln Place). I guess we all have to be patient, but still it has been 30+ years since anything above 700ft has been built in Boston.

[Ned Flaherty]

Gov. snubs Columbus Center
Thomas Grillo ● Banker & Tradesman ● 14 July 2008

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/GovSnub.jpg

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/pub/5_346/commercial/200336-1.html

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^see, the main problem right now is funding, not UFPs or NIMBYs like you, that time has passed...hopefully the funding will come soon and this amazing project will come to fruition.

[TedG]

^^see, the main problem right now is funding, not UFPs or NIMBYs like you, that time has passed...hopefully the funding will come soon and this amazing project will come to fruition.

If this is such a great (or even feasible) project, you'd think that at least ONE financial institution SOMEWHERE would want to lend them the money to build it. They can't get financing from ANYONE because the project is a dud, and the developers (and their PR firm) are incompetent.

Imagine....paying a Public Relations firm to say "no comment" as their stock answer because of "distortions by the media." Isn't the whole purpose of a PR firm to avoid such "distortions"? The truth is the media prints EXACTLY what they say, and when they get caught in their lies later, they blame the media for it.

Let's call this one what it is, and let's hope Mr. Rosenthal does a better job in the Fenway.

[Ned Flaherty]

Watching What We Breathe

Tufts University Journal ● 14 July 2008 ● http://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/2008/07/briefs/01/

Impact of highway pollution on Boston-area neighborhoods, including Somerville and Chinatown, is focus of new research

Living in a neighborhood close to a major highway may expose residents to higher than average pollution rates, but up until now, no one has known for sure.

That’s about to change, though, as Tufts researchers team up with five Boston-area community groups to find the answer, aided by a five-year, $2.5 million grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science. The scientists will focus on Somerville, Mass. , Boston’s Chinatown , and two other communities that will be chosen soon.

“Most of the studies to date examined regional effects of pollution,” says Doug Brugge, associate professor of public health and family medicine. “Only recently has research begun to suggest that highly concentrated local sources, such as highways, may be even more hazardous.”

Photo: Perry Kroll/iStock

A steering committee of representatives from five community groups will lead the research in collaboration with principal investigator Doug Brugge, director of the Tufts Community Research Center at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service.

The Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership initially approached Brugge, an associate professor in the School of Medicine’s department of public health and family medicine, about the impact of highway pollution on Somerville neighborhoods next to Interstate 93, a major highway leading in and out of Boston.

Meeting with other communities adjacent to major highways, a literature review by Tufts faculty and more recent pilot studies of Somerville’s I-93 pollution all set the foundation for this grant, says Wig Zamore of the Somerville Partnership. “We feel fortunate to be included in this scientific effort to learn more about these understudied exposures and to help better define their most serious impacts.”

By actively engaging the Boston and Somerville communities, the [I]Tufts investigators predict the study will yield results that more traditional research methods would not achieve.

As part of the study, participants will be asked to submit blood samples to be tested for evidence of heart and lung disease. “Many people live close to I-93 and I-95, and they may well be exposed to these tiny particles, but they aren’t aware of it,” says Bart Laws, senior investigator at the Latin American Health Institute, another of the participating groups. “The particles are invisible and odorless.”

The ultrafine particulates, as they are known, have been shown to be present at higher levels close to highways, notes Brugge.

Additionally, co-investigators from the Tufts School of Engineering plan to outfit a van with air-monitoring instrumentation that can measure concentrations of a variety of chemical pollutants. John Durant, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, will lead that effort.

“Pollution levels are highest on the highway and gradually decrease to background levels as they drift away from the cars on the road,” says Brugge. “The air-monitoring van will measure pollution levels within 200 to 300 meters of highways in communities where most of the residents can see the highway from their homes.”

In Boston, both I-93 and the Massachusetts Turnpike border Chinatown. “Some residents have lived at the junction of two major highways for decades,” says Lydia Lowe, executive director of the Chinese Progressive Association, another study participant. “What does it mean for the long-term health of Chinatown residents, and what are the implications for future development and planning for our community? These are some of the questions we hope this study can help us to explore.”

[I]Brugge says there is a large and growing body of scientific evidence that shows ambient pollution, even at levels below those set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is harmful to health. “Most of the studies to date examined regional effects of pollution,” he notes. “Only recently has research begun to suggest that highly concentrated local sources, such as highways, may be even more hazardous. To our knowledge, much of the work to date on near-highway exposures and health has come from southern California, so the project represents an expansion to the northeastern United States.”

Work on the project began on June 13, and preliminary results are not expected for several years. Brugge notes that other pilot studies addressing the issue of exposure near highways, not part of the new grant, are currently in the works. Results from those studies should be available later this year or next year.

[Ned Flaherty]

^^see, the main problem right now is funding . . . hopefully the funding will come soon . . .

Funding doesn’t just eventually “come through” as if from a slot machine on which someone pulls the lever long and hard enough. Funding comes from people who are willing to temporarily part with their money because their research demonstrates that they’ll earn a good profit quickly.

Among the dozens of projects going up all over Boston right now, each one got — and retained — all needed funding from an array of owners, investors, bankers, and (sometimes) government.

From those same four sources, Columbus Center either lost all of its tentatively approved funding, or else never even got the hoped for funding to begin with. The project is inactive today because it has no money to spend. And the former owners and current owners won’t give it any more cash.

But lack of funding is only the symptom, not the illness. The project’s inability to obtain cash is caused by a host of deeper troubles (some of which I mentioned over the last year). Those kinds of problems never get resolved by just a friendly banker or by a market “up-tick.”

[Ned Flaherty]

Pike’s projects stall

Real estate sales no cure for looming deficit ● Deals won’t plug Pike deficit

By Scott Van Voorhis ● July 14, 2008

The Massachusetts Turnpike is facing a financial meltdown, but market conditions prevent it from tapping its most valuable asset - its real estate.

As the authority grapples with a $75 million to $100 million budget gap, the Turnpike is sitting on - or actually under - some of the most valuable stretches of developable property in Boston.

The air rights to build over the Turnpike in Boston are worth, on paper anyway, hundreds of millions of dollars.

But the downturn in the real estate market - coupled with what some say has been the authority’s clumsy handling in the past of its real estate - has for now shuttered this potential goldmine.

“People could say we should be a lot more aggressive with the sale of our real estate,” said Turnpike spokesman Mac Daniel. “The market is just not there to do that.”

Beyond dispute is the Turnpike’s dire financial situation. Both the authority’s spokesman and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation peg the authority’s budget deficit to be as high as $100 million.

One factor is Big Dig debt. Payments on the project’s bonds are starting to ramp up and the first large principal payments are due, Daniel said. The authority is also dealing with the fallout from questionable financing deals made under former Turnpike chief Matt Amorello, which reportedly could trigger as much as $200 million in increased costs.

Meanwhile, maintenance costs on the new Central Artery tunnel and highway system are also draining away millions in revenue, said Michael Widmer, president of the taxpayers foundation.

That leaves the Turnpike with little choice but to increase tolls to get itself out of its budget jam, some say.

“Certainly time is running short,” Widmer said. “Certainly by the end of this calendar year they will have to have announced a new toll increase. There is no way you can do this without a new toll increase. The only question is how.”

Market conditions mean the prospect is slim for any help from the Turnpike’s real estate holdings, despite years invested in planning a series of big projects in Boston.

The $800 million Columbus Center plan was supposed to have created a new neighborhood on a deck over the Turnpike between the South End and Back Bay. The development was to have generated millions in lease payments. But after years of community meetings, planning and debate, the project’s developer, Arthur Winn, put the project on hold after losing a key piece of his financing.

Meanwhile, in the Fenway, developer John Rosenthal has also spent years planning a massive air-rights project spanning the Turnpike near Fenway Park [map]. But that project is still under regulatory review, with no immediate prospect of any financial return to the beleaguered Turnpike.

Plans to bring in more than $100 million through the sale of highway-crossed Turnpike land near South Station - dubbed “South Bay” by Amorello - also turned out to be a big flop.

The slow pace of development along the Turnpike’s Boston corridor stands in stark contrast to rosy assumptions made by authority officials a decade ago when the idea of air-rights development began to take flight.

At that time, the value of the Turnpike’s air-rights holdings was estimated to be in the hundreds of millions.

Those projections helped fuel aggressive plans by the Turnpike to spur construction of mega-projects along prime pieces of the Turnpike’s Boston extension.

But as developers like Columbus Center’s Winn began to craft detailed plans, the economics of the deals began to come under question.

The tens of millions or more it costs to build decks over the Turnpike suddenly loomed large, requiring developers to propose ever-larger towers to make the numbers work. In the case of Columbus Center, that triggered a firestorm of community opposition that led to hundreds of meetings and long delays.

“No one can afford to build the decks,” said downtown tower developer Dean Stratouly. “You can’t pay for air-rights and then have to create them.”

But the downturn in the economy and the real estate market may have delivered the final blow to some of these big air-rigths projects, at least for of any near-term groundbreaking.

“Clearly at this point in time they will not be seeing any great revenue surge on the real estate issue,” said David Begelfer, head of the local chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1106827

[Beton Brut]

So Ned -- level with me. What would you like to see built here? Define your best outcome.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . What would you like to see built here?

As I’ve said, like thousands of people from the surrounding communities, I only want a proposal that:

• is competitively bid (so competition forces quality),
• has full financial disclosure (so taxpayers know if it really needs $222 million in subsidies),
• complies with the 101-page Turnpike Master Plan, and
• generates no more toxic air than the average metro Boston neighborhood.

John Rosenthal plans for his One Kenmore proposal to do exactly that.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Funding doesn’t just eventually “come through” as if from a slot machine on which someone pulls the lever long and hard enough. Funding comes from people who are willing to temporarily part with their money because their research demonstrates that they’ll earn a good profit quickly.

Among the dozens of projects going up all over Boston right now, each one got — and retained — all needed funding from an array of owners, investors, bankers, and (sometimes) government.

From those same four sources, Columbus Center either lost all of its tentatively approved funding, or else never even got the hoped for funding to begin with. The project is inactive today because it has no money to spend. And the former owners and current owners won’t give it any more cash.

But lack of funding is only the symptom, not the illness. The project’s inability to obtain cash is caused by a host of deeper troubles (some of which I mentioned over the last year). Those kinds of problems never get resolved by just a friendly banker or by a market “up-tick.”

Time will tell, I'd predict that this project will get funding once the market downturn ends, remember, Columbus Center did have funding but then it got pulled, so it has demonstrated an ability to get funding, meaning that once the profit opportunity is right (cheaper and greater loans, possibly lower construction costs), this will get built. And the study says UFPs exist near major highways with or without air rights development, so why aren't you moving to somewhere less toxic? Columbus Center will have no effect on the UFPs being emitted, its a building, not a automobile. So the problem is you living near the highway which emits UFPs every day, if you're so scared why don't you move out? Since you don't, the real reason is NIMBYism and loving that great view of that beautiful, beautiful ditch. If you don't like high-rise development, move out of the city because cities are constantly changing and cities ARE the place for high-rise development, especially Columbus Center just a block or two from the tallest building in New England.

[Beton Brut]

Given your bullet-points, I'm more interested in your thoughts on scale, architectural style, and uses.

John Rosenthal plans for his One Kenmore proposal to do exactly that.

Not exactly -- as I recall, the only thing Rosenthal's building over the Pike is the garage (with a skirt of residential units fronting Brookline Avenue. The buildings will all be constructed on terra firma on existing parking lots fronting Beacon Street.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Columbus Center did have funding but then it got pulled
That’s untrue. Re-read the public records. This project never obtained 100% of the funding needed to proceed. There never was a bank loan, just an offer with requirements that the project never met. And all the subsidies were tentative; no checks were ever written.

. . . UFPs exist near major highways with or without air rights development . . . Columbus Center will have no effect on the UFPs being emitted . . .
That also is untrue. Again, re-read the public records.

Five years ago, MTA accepted a vent scheme that would deliver 6.3 million cubic feet of particulate-laden polluted air per minute into communities along I-90. MTA’s cross-city tunnel designs, ventilation engineering plans, and leases show 22 locations where air pollution moves from the railway/roadway transportation corridors into offices and homes. At those 22 locations, 19 vents are fan-powered, and 3 vents are open-air cavities. Of the 22 vents, 11 are operating today, 5 are under construction, and 6 are planned. These 22 vents capture, concentrate, and release un-filtered particulate-laden air pollution from the tunnels below into the offices, homes, parks, and communities above. Columbus Center features five such vents.

This is public information.

The details are covered more comprehensively in earlier posts.

. . . why don't you move?

I won’t move because it’s more important to stay and work toward a better outcome than it is to leave and let that worse outcome occur.

I also won’t move because I don’t have to.

Developers often tell those they plan to harm, “You should move your home to avoid my proposal.”

That kind of ignorant, selfish logic works both ways. An appropriate rebuttal would be: “You should move your project.”

A more reasoned reaction is to either fix a harmful project, or else not build it.

[Ned Flaherty]

Given your bullet-points, I'm more interested in your thoughts on scale, architectural style, and uses.

There are many valid combinations of scale, style, and use. I would be favorably disposed toward most of them, so long as the principles I mentioned get honored. The principles are worth fighting for, because once they’re well met, things like scale, style, and use usually come out well, too.

. . . the only thing Rosenthal's building over the Pike is the garage . . . the buildings will all be constructed on terra firma

All air rights proposals have some portion over air, and some on land. It makes no sense to consider only the air portion or only the land portion; each proposal exists in its entirety as a comprehensive set.

Rosenthal plans his entire One Kenmore proposal to meet the principles I listed above. And he saw what happened when Columbus Center didn’t meet those principles. So let’s hope for the best. Proposal is expected in the fall.

[atlrvr]

As I’ve said, like thousands of people from the surrounding communities, I only want a proposal that:

• is competitively bid (so competition forces quality),
• has full financial disclosure (so taxpayers know if it really needs $222 million in subsidies),
• complies with the 101-page Turnpike Master Plan, and
• generates no more toxic air than the average metro Boston neighborhood.

John Rosenthal plans for his One Kenmore proposal to do exactly that.

Really?

Was it competitively bid? I thought it was more along the lines of "Hey, MBTA I own some adjacent land, and I know you need the cash", and their response was "Let's consider our options....um, ok", and the city followed suit after several months of "considering" whether or not to name them as the qualified developer.

Do you have full financial disclosure? Who are the equity partners on that project? Who is providing the debt? Does he have firm commitment letters in hand? The answers are unknown, unknown, and no, because this project hasn't reached the stage that CC has, where every needed nail has been accounted for.

Does it meet the 101-page plan? I guess so...you wrote it right?

Generates more toxic air? Do the laws of chemistry and physics exist in a separate reality 1.5 miles west of Columbus Center? I admit, I don't have time to painstakingly read every PNF and such, but I don't recall hearing of some super-scrubber technology being implemented there.

So, how are these projects vastly different?

[Cojapo]

I am amazed that this thread gets so much attention given that there is nothing going on, nor is there really any hope that something will be developed any time soon.
One thing that I am having a hard time understanding...how pricing over air rights is determined? Is Boston over-evaluating or is it on par with other cities that go through this? I understand that projects move here at a molasis moving uphill in January pace, but the two major developments, Copley and the Pru, were constructed decades ago. The amount of money that the city is sitting on, the lack of direction and drive to develop these, is staggering.

[tobyjug]

I am amazed that this thread gets so much attention given that there is nothing going on, nor is there really any hope that something will be developed any time soon.

Law of physics: gas expands to fill a void.

[Beton Brut]

There are many valid combinations of scale, style, and use. I would be favorably disposed toward most of them, so long as the principles I mentioned get honored.

But what would excite you? Is there an architect you really dig? Do you prefer the humane modernism of Alvar Aalto and his descendants, or Richard Rodger's high-tech modernism, or a brick-clad design by Robert A.M. Stern, in keeping with the South End?

The principles are worth fighting for, because once they’re well met, things like scale, style, and use usually come out well, too.

An interesting assumption. I can point to a number of projects where this idea (sticking to the script) falls to the ground. The Hotel Commonwealth comes immediately to mind.

I'm a pretty principled guy myself, and I frequently speak out on behalf of my community (East Boston). Hundreds of people like me weren't able to prevent the FAA and Massport from green-lighting the Centerfield taxiway at Logan, a project that will have deleterious effects on my community that far exceed what Columbus Center would generate in your neighborhood (i.e. no aspect of Columbus Center will increase the capacity of the Turnpike or the rail lines). Any thoughts on that? I think you'd agree that the people of East Boston, Winthrop, Chelsea, Revere, Everett, Medford, East Cambridge, and Somerville are entitled to clean air, just like you and your neighbors in the South End.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Was it competitively bid? . . . Do you have full financial disclosure? . . . Does it meet the 101-page plan? . . . I don't recall hearing of some super-scrubber technology being implemented there. . . . So, how are these projects vastly different?

The MTA sought competitive bids, and Rosenthal was the only respondent, so it still lacks the competition necessary to force each bidder to put a “best foot forward.” However, that’s far superior to the back-room deal in which MTA Chairman Kerasiotes gave Winn perpetual exclusive rights, guaranteed that any competitors who showed up would be turned away, and waived all need for financial disclosure.

The One Kenmore draft proposal is expected some time this fall. Then it can be seen the extent to which there’s full financial disclosure, compliance with the Turnpike Master Plan, and whether the air in the community is no more toxic than the metro area average. Typically, a draft proposal raises questions that need to be answered in a final proposal the next year.

Ways in which One Kenmore and Columbus Center are similar:
• Both are about 1.6-million square-feet.
• Both are mixed-use air rights developments.
• Both are proposed on a mix of private and/or public property owned by the MTA.
• Both would have the Turnpike Authority as a landlord for 99 years.

Ways in which they differ:
• MTA and Rosenthal so far have adhered to the Turnpike Master Plan.
• Rosenthal has vowed not to repeat the mistakes made by Columbus Center’s former owner (Winn Development) and its later owner (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC).
• Rosenthal does not intend to propose his project as subsidy-free, and then once it’s approved, seek $222 million in public funds, hoping no one will notice. That's what Columbus Center did.

[Ned Flaherty]

But what would excite you? . . . humane modernism . . . high-tech modernism . . . brick-clad design . . . ?

What would truly excite me, honestly, is adherence to the principles. I can’t write a prescription for design, though. I leave that to the designers.

I can point to a number of projects where this idea (sticking to the script) falls to the ground. The Hotel Commonwealth comes immediately to mind.

Yes, but the worst of it was remedied when Redevelopment officials enforced corrective measures to adhere to the original proposal.

. . . Hundreds of people . . . weren't able to prevent the FAA and Massport from green-lighting the Centerfield taxiway at Logan, a project that will have deleterious effects on my community that far exceed what Columbus Center would generate in your neighborhood (i.e. no aspect of Columbus Center will increase the capacity of the Turnpike or the rail lines). Any thoughts on that?

Some South Enders actively opposed the Centerfield taxiway, because after all, increased air traffic flies over the South End, too. It does seem that the taxiway is more damaging to more people than Columbus Center itself would be; however, remember that the principles being fought for at Columbus Center apply to all 23 parcels and all 44 acres all across town, so there’s a big legacy at stake here.

I think you'd agree that the people of East Boston, Winthrop, Chelsea, Revere, Everett, Medford, East Cambridge, and Somerville are entitled to clean air, just like you and your neighbors in the South End.
Of course everyone should have clean air, so I do sympathize with the predicament in East Boston.

[pelhamhall]

Just theorizing here... indulge me for a minute...

What if the studies come back and say, you really should cap the entire Turnpike, build 40-50 story vent stacks to widely disperse the air away from the street-level residents?

Would neighbors be in favor of 40-50 story development that encapsulated/enclosed the vent structures? Or is the ultimate goal here closing all urban highways?

What are we working towards? If in ten years, auto technology has changed to the point where we are all coping with $8/gallon gas, and the highway is populated with much different vehicles, will any of this even matter?

These are all big questions. Using these big, profound, philosophical questions as a wrench to hurl at Columbus Center is unreasonable. On, next to, or across from... the question is "should urban highways be closed"? This question has nothing to do with the tiny patch of highway that these buildings will cover, when you look at the big picture that the question asks.

[statler]

If gas reach $8/gallon I think highways are going to populated with weeds.

Edit: Why do I keep posting in this godforsaken thread?!?

[pelhamhall]

Not "if" but "when"

[statler]

^^True

[tobyjug]

...and Toby shall rule the highway.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/tobyjug_2008/tazio-1-1-1-1-1.jpg

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . What if the studies come back and say, you really should cap the entire Turnpike . . . ? . . . Would neighbors be in favor of 40-50 story development that encapsulated/enclosed the vent structures? Or is the ultimate goal here closing all urban highways? . . . If in ten years, auto technology has changed to the point where we are all coping with $8/gallon gas, and the highway is populated with much different vehicles, will any of this even matter? . . . the question is "should urban highways be closed"? . . .

The decision to tunnel the entire turnpike within urban Boston was already made, a half century ago. No one has ever seriously objected to tunnelization. Then MTA quietly decided in 2003 that the existing pollution (far more deadly near the corridor than several blocks away from it) will get captured, concentrated, and exhausted from 14 new vents (3 open-air cavities and 11 high-speed fans).

People object to this vent scheme not to stop Columbus Center, or to stop the successor proposal that will replace it, or to stop any other proposals along I-90, or to close the transportation corridor. People object as a matter of environmental justice for those who work and live near the corridor.

No citizen should suffer such high-risk exposure simply because a state-level Authority and its for-profit business partner sacrificed public health so they could walk away with more profit. Along I-90 and I-93, tens of thousands of Bostonians are at risk.

Even if all goes well, it still will take a couple of generations to switch from fossil-fueled to hydrogen/solar-based cars, buses, trucks, and trains. Just as Bubonic Plague doesn’t matter today, diesel-based particulate matter won’t be of much consequence in the future. In the meantime, however, this invisible, odorless, tasteless exposure is harming people every day, at the cellular level.

[pelhamhall]

I've always heard the air in Vermont is great - clean, fresh and healthy. I've also always heard that air in major metropolitan cities is not as clean, fresh or healthy.

Again, what is the ultimate goal here? Close the highways? Eradicate vehicles? Cap and vent all highways with massive scrubbing stations? What about the traffic on congested thoroughfares like Boylston Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Mass Ave? And what do with the Prudential Center? Copley Place? Shutter them? Demolish them so the highways can breathe freely?
The city air is dirty - it's a worldwide phenomena completely and totally unrelated to the construction on a small patch of downtown Boston at Columbus Center.

These such huge, major questions. However, in relation to Columbus Center specifically, they are just a stalling technique for one little real estate project.

Not that it's worked - it's important to note that this whole "UFP angle" has been undertaken by neighbors who will have their views blocked by a shiny new tower next door. These aren't environmentalists, these are some of Boston's wealthiest, most elite citizens with the time and money on their hands to fight to maintain their multi-million dollar views. These people are far removed from "environmentalists". These are the same people that populate all the same meetings to stall all progressive growth and development in our city.

I'm not arguing that air pollution in the city isn't an issue - it has been since the 1700s and the days of open sewers. Air pollution in the city -any city- will always be a problem. What does this have to do with Columbus Center? Well, everything - and also nothing at all.

Growth, progress and economic development in the city will always change and alter as we strive for a better, cleaner society. You can't just close the highways, roads, and train lines, shutter air rights developments, construct giant scrubbing stations and put a moratorium on all construction and development near any roadway. Ultimately, isn't that the basis and goal of the so-called "UFP argument" against Columbus Center?

[Ron Newman]

But you can electrify train lines -- and that would be a major improvement.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Again, what is the ultimate goal here? Cap and vent all highways with massive scrubbing stations?

Two goals are underway.
Goal 1 (tunnelize Boston’s entire turnpike) was decided in 1962, by society at large, in public.
Goal 2 (vent the pollution from below into communities above) was decided in 2003, by MTA, in secret.

. . . What about the traffic on congested thoroughfares like Boylston Street, Atlantic Avenue, and Mass Ave?
The solution there is cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels. On open-air thoroughfares, vent filtration isn't practical because there is no tunnel to house it.

. . . And what do with the Prudential Center? Copley Place?

MTA’s air pollution exhaust vents have been operating continuously at Prudential Center since 1963, at Hancock Garage since 1969, and at Copley Place since 1984. Because those 3 vents have been harming public health for years, MTA should remediate them even before it remediates the Columbus Center vents.

. . . city air is dirty - it's a worldwide phenomena completely and totally unrelated to the construction on a small patch of downtown Boston at Columbus Center. . .

No, not at all. Air pollution may be common, but MTA’s decision is unheard of: capture, concentrate, and exhaust air pollution from tunnels below into existing communities above, in high-speed, continuous doses. MTA’s decision is an intrinsic, fundamental part of the design that MTA encouraged and approved for Columbus Center.

. . . this whole "UFP angle" has been undertaken by neighbors who will have their views blocked by a shiny new tower next door . . .

That’s untrue. Over 13 years, not one of the people now concerned about this issue were ever concerned about future views. All the public comment records prove this.

. . . These people are far removed from "environmentalists".

That’s also untrue. While most of those concerned about air pollution represent a cross section of average people, a few are professionally involved in environmental issues.

What you’re really saying is this: average citizens are not entitled to have public health concerns unless they become environmentalists first. Telling people that they have to get certified if they want to care about their health is profoundly elitist.

. . . These are the same people that populate all the same meetings to stall all progressive growth and development in our city.

That’s also untrue. The vast majority of the people who are most concerned with MTA’s air pollution have virtually no history at public meetings on Columbus Center. It wouldn’t matter anyway, though, because MTA and CWCC never publicly admitted to the exhust vents, and instead just designed and approved them in secret.

What you call “progressive growth” (pollution without remediation) is actually regressive growth (private profit over public health). In your arithmetic, developers’ personal profit should outweigh public health and well being.

When you speak of “our” city you’re saying the city belongs only to you and those like you who want it changed the way that you want it changed, and you’re saying that the city doesn’t belong at all to anyone who feels differently than you do. That’s quite elitist.

You can't just close the highways, roads, and train lines, shutter air rights developments, construct giant scrubbing stations and put a moratorium on all construction and development near any roadway.

Response - Closing transportation corridors is not possible, but cleansing the air vents is possible, and building away from pollution sources is already being done successfully in California.

Side note - The development industry commonly uses the tactic you used above: lump possible ideas among impossible ones in order to hide the credible ones from further consideration. If you don’t believe me, attend one of the industry-sponsored classes where they teach ways to deceive the public, the government, and the media.

[Ron Newman]

Can you point us to a currently operating example of scrubbing air vents? I'd like to see this done as well, but I don't know if current technology is up to the task.

Is there a difference between the I-90 air vents (current and proposed) and the air vents for other local tunnels such as Callahan, Sumner, Ted Williams, City Square, and I-93 (O'Neill)?

[stellarfun]

Can you point us to a currently operating example of scrubbing air vents? I'd like to see this done as well, but I don't know if current technology is up to the task.

Is there a difference between the I-90 air vents (current and proposed) and the air vents for other local tunnels such as Callahan, Sumner, Ted Williams, City Square, and I-93 (O'Neill)?

Nobody scrubs vents. This was discussed a bunch of pages back. The volume of air you would have to scrub would require a building that would rival Tommy's Tower in size, at enormous operating cost. It would be far cheaper to buy and demolish Ned's condo.

The emerging abatement strategies for fine particulates and UFPs is greater control of emissions from diesel engines, and/or restricting the use of diesel trucks on certain highways in certain areas. But Boston's climate is far different than Southern California, so the abatement stategies being devised there may not be needed in Massachusetts.

In any event, somebody driving their car on a daily downtown Boston commute will have far more exposure to these pollutants than somebody living in a mid-rise tower on Clarendon St.

[Ron Newman]

OK, but since Ned is the one who says this technology is feasible ("cleansing the air vents is possible"), I'd like him to point me to a current example.

How do other urban highway tunnels deal with this problem? (NYC East and Hudson rivers, Baltimore harbor, DC under the Mall, Detroit-Windsor, Oakland-Alameda, others?)

[KentXie]

What Ned wants is a utopia. A perfect city where nothing can harm you. I don't know about you but I think that there is always a sacrifice in order to progress. I don't see any problems in any other major cities involving this, only Boston. Fact is fact, there is, and will be pollution over the pike no matter whether or not you pave over it or not. If the pollution is vented, it will spread above ground regardless.

I think a good way for CC to get the necessary funding for this project is use this offer:

If you want clean air, pay us the money to build a feasible vent that can scrub the air. If you cannot pay, shut the hell up because building an advance scrubbing vent is NOT FEASIBLE. If it was, then CC should not be in money trouble right now without the advance vents that Ned speak of.

[pelhamhall]

I am enjoying all this back-and-forth, and this whole argument does raise some very big questions. It's almost philosophical at this point.

This whole discussion about UFPs, pollution, and the future of our transportation modes, city life and progress really belongs on a separate thread.

It's important to note that Columbus Center is approved, enjoys wide-spread support, and will be built once this pesky thing called "the epic, worldwide financial markets melt-down" has subsided. The UFP talk is fun - but until the capital markets stop vomiting red ink, Columbus Center will remain on hold - in all it's breath-taking (pun intended) glory.

If we were to talk about the development itself there's nothing to debate. That debate was held years ago and that debate is over. Winn & Partners got their permits, enjoy the support of 73%-approval-rating Menino, and are ready to build and should be congratulated on their intestinal fortitude throughout the process.

The only questions that remain are when will they get financing, how will they get financing, and should the project be scrapped due to the worldwide financial market melt-down, or should it be put on hold until the financial markets bounce back?

UFPs? Pollution? Shadows? Height? Density? Those debates are over. At least they are everywhere expect, apparently, on this little architecture board.

[statler]

Who you calling 'little', bub?

http://blogs.tampabay.com/80s/images/2008/02/12/garycoleman.jpg

[underground]

When you speak of “our” city you’re saying the city belongs only to you and those like you who want it changed the way that you want it changed, and you’re saying that the city doesn’t belong at all to anyone who feels differently than you do. That’s quite elitist.

Posted 100% irony free.

[KentXie]

^^^I really do dislike hypocrites.

[Ron Newman]

Those debates are over.

Except the debate over whether the project should receive public subsidy, and if so, how much. Disputes over that question seem to have sunk the project, at least temporarily.

[justin]

A practical suggestion: I was away for a few days, and I would much prefer to be able to check for news or pictures on CC without having to scroll through page upon page of UFP theology. Can one or the other be hived off to a separate thread?

justin

[statler]

^^We can split this thread a thousand times and it won't matter. This is the only thread Ned will ever visit and he will continue speak out against UFP's in this thread and this thread only.

I would love for Ned to see what we are doing in the SC&L thread (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1835) and maybe even lend a hand with some of his media contacts. But we all know that will never happen.

As long as Drucker 'adheres to the principles', he can destroy the city all he wants and "urban activists" like Ned, won't issue so much as raise a peep.

Edit: I was wrong.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Ned, you must move immediately from your current residence or you will suffer permanent and extensive damage from UFPs. Since this project is dead, there is no need for you to let your health suffer anymore for the benefit of the city. Thank you for your help, and please keep your own health in mind, remembering that the South End is still dangerous because of the UFPs being spewed out of every street and railway, even if Columbus Center isn't built. I am not kidding you, your lifespan will drop dramatically if you stay where you are, along with those (if you have them) of your partner and child(ren).

[TedG]

All of those who just scoff and laugh at the UFP dangers remind me of the rich people on the Titanic who were joking around and using pieces of the iceberg to chill their drinks. They weren't laughing so hard when all the lifeboats were gone.

[statler]

Columbus Center = Titanic

I can see that.

Both seemed like really good ideas at the time but both turned out to be unmitigated disasters of epic proportions.

[tobyjug]

How long must one be exposed to UFP's for damage to be done? What is the damage and what are the manifestations?

[stellarfun]

How long must one be exposed to UFP's for damage to be done? What is the damage and what are the manifestations?

Here is a 2007 summary paper:

http://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/UFPwhitePaper20070205.pdf

There are a large number of variables with respect to exposure; e.g., local meteorology. The epidemiology is very complex, given the variable rates of exposure during the day, e.g., a toll collector who lives near the Mass Pike and collects tolls at the tunnel eight hours a day.

If you wanted to do an epidemiological study of long term exposure to the air vented from tunnels in Boston, look at the neighborhood around the vents for the Callahan and Summer tunnels. For emissions data from the Callahan and other tunnels see here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1299785/Environmental-Protection-Agency-crce64

(caution, very long paper)

[Beton Brut]

If you wanted to do an epidemiological study of long term exposure to the air vented from tunnels in Boston, look at the neighborhood around the vents for the Callahan and Summer tunnels. For emissions data from the Callahan and other tunnels see here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1299785/Environmental-Protection-Agency-crce64

Thank for posting this. A proper study concerning this area of East Boston (Meridian Street, Central Square) would also need to consider the impact of the airport. Aggregating the data is difficult; I believe the state-sponsored study that was alluded to above will consider these factors.

[tobyjug]

Stellarfun,

Thank you for posting this information. It makes it appear that the prospects of eliminating the deleterious effects of diesel fuel, short of banning it in urban areas, seem limited. The use of low sulfur fuel helps, but only to a point. Sulfur sinks, is that technology viable on a large scale? Doesn't look promising. I wonder how current air quality compares to the height of the coal era, say 1915?

Toby

[Ronwell Pudding]

A late edition to a thread that should have died a long time ago.

In defense of Ned's assertions, to whatever validity you hold his claims, however dangerous you think UFPs are, and however obnoxious and disingenuous you think he is, he does have a valid point. His presentation however is too technical and lacks simplicity and directness.

Have you ever seen the vent on Stuart Street that spews black smoke and soot out of the section of Copley Place that covers the highway? The ashen smoke that spews forth in random bursts throughout the day is disgusting, noxious and definitely bad for you. It’s like a large smokestack that billows out into the street. Can we all agree that auto, truck, and train exhaust is probably bad for you? Does anyone like breathing in diesel fumes?

Suppose then a developer owns property above a highway where smoke and exhaust are constantly emitted. The building he wants to build leaves a narrow and small cut where all the smoke and exhaust will be channeled up into the atmosphere akin to a large smokestack. Any abutting property owner who shares a window onto that cut will definitely get a larger than normal share of noxious fumes. It would pose a definite health concern. Even if it means halting construction, is it not fair then to try and force the developer to at least address this design deficiency before proceeding to build on said property?

To answer both questions, yes its a reasonable to one, worry about health risks from exhaust or UFPs; and two, by whatever means you can convince the developer, city, state to make changes to correct the design as to avoid said health concerns as a result of the new building.

What Ned has never answered directly--and the reason he comes of as a disingenuous obstructionist--is whether or not he would be in favor of Columbus Center if the developer fixed the design flaws, eliminated UFP emission and built a building that posed no health risk. Even if the building was 30 stories tall, brought more traffic and blocked a view. Yes or no?

[Patriots_1228]

what we need to do is put giant fans on top of the skyscrapers that will blow all the crap southwest, to new york city, where it belongs.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Well since the jet stream flows from west to east I think it would make more sense to blow it out to sea. New York has it's own crap, thank you very much.

[TC]

RP the issue with Ned's UFP argument is that it is completely unreasonable to require a development to implement a scrubbing technology that does not yet exist at this scale.

[Suffolk 83]

New York has it's own crap, thank you very much. Yea they're called the Yankees. Give NY a break.

[stellarfun]

RP, where exactly is this vent on Stuart St.? Is it perchance near Back Bay station? Your description of black smoke and soot sounds as if it might be the exhaust from the MBTA's diesel locomotives.

To my way of thinking, the easiest and cheapest fix for a good amount of the air pollution along the Mass Pike and in Back Bay would be to electrify the Worcester branch out to Allston and have the MBTA use dual mode locomotives for the Worcester and Attleboro lines. The link below is for a dual mode locomotive (that uses third rail) on the LIRR.

http://references.transportation.siemens.com/refdb/showReference.do?div=6&l=en&r=239

[statler]

http://images.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[Suffolk 83]

^LOL. Cheers! well done

[Patriots_1228]

would be better if he was using a belt :p

[tobyjug]

I just spit out my Cap'n Crunch!!!!

[Ronwell Pudding]

TC: No I agree thats pretty unreasonable.

Stellarfun: I forget exactly--I haven't been down in that area in a while. The vent is built into the side of one of the Copley Buildings, near the intersection of Stuart and Huntington. Was walking there one day and saw all this smoke coming out, it was disgusting. Definitely not next to Back Bay Station, if you look for it you'll find it.

I was hoping Ned would come back and answer my question, maybe someday. Hope this project gets built sometime in the near future--I really like the proposal. Its just if I were living next door near the open cuts for the transit lines I'd probably be a little worried about fumes..

[stellarfun]

TC: No I agree thats pretty unreasonable.

Stellarfun: I forget exactly--I haven't been down in that area in a while. The vent is built into the side of one of the Copley Buildings, near the intersection of Stuart and Huntington. Was walking there one day and saw all this smoke coming out, it was disgusting. Definitely not next to Back Bay Station, if you look for it you'll find it.

I was hoping Ned would come back and answer my question, maybe someday. Hope this project gets built sometime in the near future--I really like the proposal. Its just if I were living next door near the open cuts for the transit lines I'd probably be a little worried about fumes..

RP, these look like vents, at the intersection of Stuart and Huntington. I think the train platforms for Back Bay, at least the Worcester Branch, would be underneath.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q199/tahitiplage/SNAG-01878.jpg

[TC]

RP, these look like vents, at the intersection of Stuart and Huntington. I think the train platforms for Back Bay, at least the Worcester Branch, would be underneath.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q199/tahitiplage/SNAG-01878.jpg


That's not the mechanical equipment for Shaw's?

[stellarfun]

That's not the mechanical equipment for Shaw's?

Could be. In using Google satellite and street view, the only other structure that might be a vent is a circular silo at 454 Stuart according to Google. That's right next to the train station and it maybe a circular ramp for the parking garage. (I've never used that garage so I don't know for sure.) There may be a vent in the donut middle,

[Ronwell Pudding]

Its not the circular portion for sure. I checked google street view and couldn't find it but the images are really blurry and some look directly into the sun. I'm almost positive it came from the side of the building. I swear it exists though I'll just have to take a walk down there and find it and take a picture.

[TC]

Could be. In using Google satellite and street view, the only other structure that might be a vent is a circular silo at 454 Stuart according to Google. That's right next to the train station and it maybe a circular ramp for the parking garage. (I've never used that garage so I don't know for sure.) There may be a vent in the donut middle,

I think the vents for the BB Station are near the intersection of Clarendon and Columbus. They are free standing brick structures at the exit of the bus turnaround. (you can see them on the google arial map)

[ablarc]

if I were living next door near the open cuts for the transit lines I'd probably be a little worried about fumes..
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/New Folder/meherbaba.jpg

[JimboJones]

"Over 100 toxic chemicals associated with health damage are released into the air from PVC vinyl shower curtains. These chemicals make up that 'new shower curtain smell' unique to PVC vinyl shower curtains and shower curtain liners."

From "Volatile Vinyl: The New Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell," a new study released last week by the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow.

Link (http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/archive/x1090702997/Beacon-Hill-Roll-Call-Senate-passes-ballyhooed-life-sciences-bill)

[atlrvr]

Thanks for the warning....if I don't take action now to remove these toxins, then one day I may die.

[Ned Flaherty]

No movement on Columbus Center

by Linda Rodriguez ● Managing Editor ● August 7, 2008

It’s been more than four months since construction on the massive Columbus Center abruptly stopped after developers requested a “moratorium on construction” due to financial woes. It’s been nearly three months since the director of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority visited residents of Cortes and Isabella streets, whose homes overlook the now dormant sight, and said he’d have a decision for them within 30 days.

And so far, no one’s heard anything. The site, a barren dirt pit bordered by the roaring Pike and torn green hurricane fencing, remains inactive.

“No one’s responding at all,” said Artie Rice, a resident of Cortes Street. “We’re ignored, we’re ignored really. ... It’s looking pretty ugly down here; the weeds are growing to tree height.”

Rice said that though the perimeter of the site is cleaned up weekly by workers from Project Place, a South End-based homeless advocacy organization, there are still problems.

The green hurricane fencing now bears graffiti and tears, the street’s trees were shorn to make way for the construction, and the interior of the site, he says, is full of rusting equipment and trash. The most tangible progress on the street is the return of the resident parking signs, bringing back parking for the neighborhood. Rice has e-mailed complaints and sent photos of the site to various representatives of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, individuals on City Council, and the Turnpike Authority, but says he’s heard nothing back from any quarter. (District 2 City Councilor Bill Linehan, one of those on Rice’s e-mail list, did not return a call for comment; a Boston Redevelopment Authority spokesperson said that she had no news regarding the project.)

“I suppose that there’s no answer, that they’re not ignoring us, but it would be nice if they would say, ’We’re still working, we’re still negotiating with the developers,’” said Rice. “There’s nothing, I don’t know who to scream to anymore. None of us know who to yell to any more.”

Mac Daniel, spokesman for the Turnpike Authority said that right now, the Turnpike is still negotiating with the developers. “I don’t have any news on the negotiations front. We continue to support the project, but we still need to iron out the terms of this year and a half moratorium,” he said Monday.

While he wasn’t aware of any complaints from residents, he said that the Turnpike Authority does need to meet with residents of the street again.

“Obviously, if residents feel that more needs to be done to keep the site up, we’ll work together with the BRA to make sure that gets done. We owe the community another meeting to update them on the status of the project and to hear about their concerns and we’ll probably set that up shortly,” Daniel said. “We don’t want to see the site remain frozen in time either. It behooves the Pike to make sure the area is cleaned up and is as close to normal as it can be until the project gets on surer footing.”

The Columbus Center project was proposed more than a decade ago, as a way to reunite the South End and Back Bay with a luxury condominium-hotel high-rise complex built on a deck constructed over the Turnpike. Construction on the Columbus Center site started in November 2007, but was abruptly stopped in March; at the time, the developers said they had concerns about their finances and ”capital structure,” and said they were waiting on a stronger financial commitment from the state. Not long after, in April, the Patrick administration announced that the Columbus Center would not be one of the recipients of the MORE grant, a $10 million infrastructure grant; following that, MassHousing pulled out of more than $25 million in loans it had agreed to give the project.

Since then, the construction site has been virtually abandoned, as the developers have scrambled to find funding for the $800 million project in a trying economic climate.

While the Columbus Center situation has continued to unfold, so have more details over the Pike’s woeful financial situation. The Turnpike Authority remains deeply in debt after the $15 billion Big Dig project, and although the state has agreed to back $1 billion of the Turnpike’s debts, allowing the quasi-public agency to lower its borrowing costs, it still faces rising maintenance costs. Daniel said that the Turnpike’s financial situation has had no bearing on the Columbus Center project’s delays, adding, “That’s completely different subject matter, and it’s not slowing this down at all.”

Meanwhile, the site still remains dormant and residents are increasingly frustrated. “It’s just very, very frustrating that no one seems to want to address it; at least get these people to clean it up. I guess they’re all expecting miracles, but I would just like for them to acknowledge our existence. It’s hard to walk out every day and see it,” Rice said, adding that he’s concerned about how long the site may sit neglected. “We’re kind of a forgotten street.”

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=78527

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Ron Newman’s inquiries about UFP tunnel vents

How do other urban highway tunnels deal with this problem?
Existing urban highway tunnels were designed before particulate matter was well understood, so existing tunnels did not include remediation.

Can you point us to a currently operating example of scrubbing air vents?
Existing tunnels don’t use any of the latest technology in the ways that it would be applied here. It can be done; it just hasn’t been done.

Is there a difference between the I-90 air vents (current and proposed) and the air vents for other local tunnels such as Callahan, Sumner, Ted Williams, City Square, and I-93 (O'Neill)?
Among the 23 existing and proposed tunnel vents, there are minor differences (size, shape, direction, ventilation method, cubic feet/minute). But all of MTA’s current and proposed vents are un-filtered.

Re: developer liability for increased harm to public health

. . . the issue with Ned's UFP argument is that it is completely unreasonable to require a development to implement a scrubbing technology that does not yet exist at this scale.

You’ve confused the technology with the application with the scale. The fact that the type of air-cleansing vent needed isn’t installed elsewhere yet is not proof that one can’t be built, or proof that the technology doesn’t exist.

There’s nothing unreasonable about the principle of “first, do no harm.” Nor is there anything unreasonable about the principle of “when harm is a built-in consequence of a proposal, then change, move, or withdraw the proposal.”

Under the current proposal, people working and living along the corridor would suffer up to about a ten-fold increase in the deadliest form of particulate matter air pollution. People who are in the exposure zone and who know about this want either the air cleansed before it’s exhausted (1st choice), or else no tunnels, vents, or development at all (2nd choice).

Except for those who are (or hope to be) part of the development industry gravy train, no corridor resident who knows about the increased air pollution is advocating for exposing communities to harmful health impacts.

Re: “liking” the proposal versus paying for it

. . . Hope this project gets built sometime in the near future--I really like the proposal. Its just if I were living next door near the open cuts for the transit lines I'd probably be a little worried about fumes..

Ronwell, the proposal got approved because it was written as subsidy-free. Only later did the owners admit that their plan was always to propose zero subsidies, get approval, and then consume as many subsidies as possible. Some of the $222 million in requested subsidies are one-time, some run for decades, and some run for a century. These subsidies are not repaid from Columbus Center’s city property taxes and state income taxes (elected officials waived much of that revenue), but from everyone else’s property and income taxes. So while there’s not enough money for basic necessities (health care, transportation, education, public safety), your politicians wasted millions of dollars subsidizing a privately owned luxury skyscraper.

Try this: if you still “really like” this proposal, then decide how many tax dollars you think every citizen should forfeit just to pay for California’s costs and profits. This project is only one eighth of the entire corridor, so multiply the amount of your own money you want to donate to Columbus Center by 8, and then reconsider whether you still “really like” the MTA’s approach to air rights development.

Anyone who doesn’t want to fork over that many of their own dollars just to fund someone else’s private profit needs to get (a) new elected officials, (b) a new subsidy-free proposal, or (c) both.

Re: vent locations

RP, these look like vents, at the intersection of Stuart and Huntington. I think the train platforms for Back Bay, at least the Worcester Branch, would be underneath.

No. Your photo shows the Prudential supermarket loading dock, not the transportation corridor exhaust vents. Also, the train passenger platforms are not underneath the Prudential supermarket; they’re actually underneath Back Bay Station, Copley Place, and the Southwest Corridor Park.

Re: remediating via electrification

. . . the easiest and cheapest fix for a good amount of the air pollution along the Mass Pike and in Back Bay would be to electrify the Worcester branch out to Allston and have the MBTA use dual mode locomotives for the Worcester and Attleboro lines.

Even if reducing commuter rail diesel pollution were easy or cheap, that would relieve only a small part of the total problem. There are also three rail lanes sporting Amtrak diesel locomotives, and most of the particulate matter comes from 100,000 turnpike vehicles each day.

Re: DarkFenX’s assumptions about the economics of air pollution cleansing

. . . What Ned wants is a utopia. A perfect city where nothing can harm you. . .
No. I’ve never asked for utopia. What I and others have said all along is that it’s unacceptable to force anyone who works or lives along the corridor to suffer needless exposure to particulate matter air pollution, and that if the corridor is developed at all, then tunnel vents need to cleanse the air before it’s pumped into the offices and homes which were there first.

Building new projects is optional; protecting public health is a necessity. When an optional new project threatens public health, then it should be built differently, be built elsewhere, or else not be built at all.

. . . there is always a sacrifice in order to progress . . .
No. It’s not true that there’s “always” a sacrifice. This situation is a perfect example. The space above the corridor can be developed, and the air below it can be cleansed. Public health need not be sacrificed just so the turnpike and its developers can profit.

. . . I don't see any problems in any other major cities involving this, only Boston. . .
You can’t see this problem elsewhere because other municipalities aren’t building city-wide tunnels that include a built-in opportunity to filter the air passing through the tunnel vents.

. . . there is, and will be pollution over the pike no matter whether or not you pave over it or not. If the pollution is vented, it will spread above ground regardless. . .

You misunderstand the problem, the cause, and the solution. Firstly, so long as the corridor remains an open-air cavity, the pollution will continue, but once the corridor becomes a tunnel, that pollution need not continue, because it can be filtered. So it’s not true that the corridor must always remain polluted. Secondly, paving has nothing to do with tunnels, vents, or pollution. Thirdly, you wrote that corridor air pollution “spreads above ground regardless” but that’s not so. Ultrafine particulate matter air pollution remains highly dangerous for the first few blocks, then the harm dissipates. Finally, no one who is aware of this issue is arguing to “vent the pollution” as you wrote; people are seeking to cleans the polluted air before venting it.

. . . building an advance scrubbing vent is NOT FEASIBLE.
Untrue. In a project estimated by its owners to sell for $1.3 billion, cleansing the exhausted air is very feasible. The controversy arises because these developers’ overriding goal is maximum profit, so they treat clean air as “optional” and “unnecessary”, whereas people working and living along the corridor would suffer increased exposure to the deadliest air pollution known. For them, clean air is “necessary” and they consider it “non-negotiable”.

. . . If it was [feasible], then CC should not be in money trouble right now without the advance vents that Ned speak of.

You misunderstand the project, both in terms of its latest proposal, and also its financial failure. The latest proposal is to capture, concentrate, and exhaust all air pollution from the corridor below into offices and homes above, so it isn’t suffering from any remediation costs at all.

What you call “money trouble” actually has entirely different causes:

● California defaulted on its 99-year lease over 2.5 years ago.
● California has been trying to re-negotiate a new one ever since.
● No local, national, or global bank ever loaned the project any money.
● Massachusetts’ subsidies to California’s profits have been denied, withdrawn, or rescinded.
● The owners ran out of cash and halted construction last winter.
● Nothing got built, but the owners consumed $110 million already (“State pulls 10m slated for Columbus Center”, Boston Globe, 8 April 2008).

[pelhamhall]

I'll just reiterate: while it's philosophical and maybe even fun to debate the effects of urban tunnels, this has nothing to do with Columbus Center. This would be a good debate to have in the "Design a Better Boston" section of this site. It's not related to Columbus Center any more than it's related to the Garden, the Greenway, the Intercontinental Hotel, South Station, Prudential Center, Copley Place, etc, etc.

This project is fully approved. The debate on Columbus Center is over. The developers won the debate.

Financing in today's market is the only obstacle. And it's a huge obstacle.

This "UFP" angle that the anti-progress cartel has just recently grasped onto is an argument of last resort. Their prior efforts to block the development based on heights, shadows, characters, etc. all failed. So, now they are left to grasp at straws... ultra-fine straws.

The debate on Columbus Center has been over for quite a while now.

[kz1000ps]

Stellarfun, the Worcester branch loading platform ends under Copley Place:

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5415/img7001pl8.jpg

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . the effects of urban tunnels, this has nothing to do with Columbus Center. . . It's not related to Columbus Center any more than it's related to the Garden, the Greenway, the Intercontinental Hotel, South Station, Prudential Center, Copley Place, etc. . .
Polluting tunnels have everything to do with Columbus Center, and in a way that none of those other sites do, because the others were finished over the last 50 years, whereas Columbus Center is only an un-approved proposal, now in its 13th year of being re-proposed.

This project is fully approved.
No. The proposal isn’t fully approved. It was never fully approved:

• MTA has not given approval to start building tunnels, much less buildings.
• No new lease was approved to replace the one that California defaulted upon 2.5 years ago.
• None of the necessary bank loans were ever approved, even when the economy was robust.
• The public subsidies were disapproved or withdrawn.
• In April, the current owners disapproved the former owners’ request for more money.

That’s a heap of mortal disapprovals.

The debate on Columbus Center is over.
Actually, more serious debates are occurring now (2005-2008) than during the years of the so-called public process (2001-2004). Not being a participant, you wouldn’t be aware of them, but they're real, and they're effective.

The developers won the debate.
Had the former or current owners “won the debate” then they would now have: bank loans, investor cash, public subsidies, MTA permission to build tunnels, and a new 99-year lease to replace the one on which they defaulted 2.5 years ago. The developers lost the debates for each of those items, and lost the approvals as well.

This "UFP" angle that the anti-progress cartel has just recently grasped onto is an argument of last resort. Their prior efforts to block the development based on heights, shadows, characters, etc. all failed. So, now they are left to grasp at straws... ultra-fine straws.
The public health risks caused by exposure to UFPs from Columbus Center’s vents are not an “angle”; they are real. The public health risks are not recently discovered; they’ve been known about for decades. The public health risks are not anyone’s last resort for blocking one development; they are actual harm intended at all air rights sites citywide.

And UFPs themselves are far more than merely ultrafine; they’re invisible, odorless, and microscopic.

All things being equal, most people value saving human lives over boosting developer profits, so getting resolution on the UFP issues isn’t anti-progress at all. It’s as progressive as one can be.

[stellarfun]

Thanks kz. I only searched google maps for a vent from Back Bay station because of the observation that black, sooty smoke would sometimes puff up near a sidewalk in the general vicinity of Copley Place.

Ned, I believe AMTRAK runs two diesel locomotives a day through Back Bay station. These are for the Boston section of the Lake Shore Limited. AMTRAK's other passenger trains are pulled by electric locomotives.

As for not enough being known about particulate matter when highway tunnels were being designed two, three, or even one decade ago, that is absolutely not true. There have been standards for particulate matter for decades. It boggles that you would make sweeping categorical statements while apparently having little familiarity with the science, technology, and regulation of air pollutants. Below is a link to an EPA fact sheet dated August 1994 which addresses the extent that emissions have been cut from motor vehicles between 1970 and 1994; i.e., by the early 1990's, there had been a 70 to 90 percent reduction in pollutants from the level emitted by motor vehicles built in 1970.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/11-vehs.pdf

[pelhamhall]

The debate on Columbus Center is over - the environmental impact, the scope of the project, what to build, how high, how much, etc, etc has all been determined and approved.

The only thing at issue is the financing. This is the hardest financing market in at least 20+ years, and Columbus Center is the most complicated financing situation imaginable. The financing variables are an extremely volatile mosaic of debt and equity pieces each lined up like a set of dominos. Remove one, and the whole process stops working.

Naturally, this extremely complicated financing package has fallen apart in the face of this historic credit collapse.

So yes, the financing "debate" rages on.

The rest of the debate? Over. The developer won that debate. The anti-progess cartel should focus their energies on stopping other projects like the Copley Place tower or the South Station Tower that are going to be built over tracks/road beds. The debate here is closed.

This silliness over the UFPs? Has nothing, nothing, at all to do with this project at this point in time. It is totally and completely irrelevant. The moderators should just move this entire thread to where it may be relevant, perhaps in the "Transit" forum and name it "Benefits and Risks of Urban Tunnel Development". This debate just doesn't belong here.

The Columbus Center debate is over. Approved. Ready to go. Just needs some very complicated financing in the face of a worldwide credit crisis. Naturally, it's stalled at the moment.

The discussion on urban design and the health effects of tunnel building in the 21st Century is an exciting and interesting debate, and it should be given its own thread because it's a much bigger philosophical debate than the architectural discussion of this one little building in Boston. I for one have learned a lot from Ned and his detractors on this subject. But sadly, I've learned nothing at all new on Columbus Center. Which is what this thread should be used to discuss.

[Ron Newman]

Amtrak runs only two diesel trains a day through Back Bay, but MBTA runs over 200. Diesel pollution is already a serious problem in the station.

[stellarfun]

Amtrak runs only two diesel trains a day through Back Bay, but MBTA runs over 200. Diesel pollution is already a serious problem in the station.
No disagreement about that. I do believe there are dual mode locomotives built that can operate using either electric or diesel power. You could electrify the Worcester line tracks to say Allston, and with dual mode locomotives being used by the MBTA, much of the diesel pollution at South station and Back bay station would be gone.

[Ron Newman]

I'm counting not just the Framingham-Worcester trains, but also the Franklin, Providence, Stoughton, and Needham trains which also pass through (a different part of) Back Bay Station.

Dual-mode locomotives sound like an excellent idea, but I've never heard of the T even considering them.

[ablarc]

All this money to be spent to avoid spending the money to do it right?

[Ron Newman]

I don't understand -- please amplify?

[ablarc]

^ Dual-mode locomotives cost money to buy and operate, and they're a band-aid. The real solution to bad air in trenches is to electrify the line. Costs more, but permanently fixes problem and yields collateral benefits. If Europe can do it, so should we.

[pharmerdave]

^ If New Jersey can do it, why can't we.

[JimboJones]

Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers (http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=guest_opinion&sc2=news&sc3=&id=78853)
by John Keith, South End News Contributor

An opportunity to stitch back together a deep tear in the urban fabric was lost with the failed Columbus Center project, the proposed $800 million, mixed-use complex to be built on decks constructed over the Massachusetts Turnpike. After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else. It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.

How could this possibly happen? How could a project that was so far along in the process unravel at the last minute, after construction had already started?

There is plenty of blame to spread around, beginning with the company that first proposed the development.

It looks as though Arthur Winn and his WinnDevelopment never secured the money needed to complete the project. According to published reports, the developer missed two deadlines earlier this year by which it was supposed to have proved to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority that it had raised $500 million (it did prove it had at least half that). But, trouble was brewing long before then.

Back in 1996, the developer proposed a subsidy-free project, but soon after it received its first approvals, it began reaching out for taxpayer money. Meanwhile, its financing began to fall apart. Major investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew more than $500 million in commitments as early as 2006. The next year, the real estate subsidiary run by investment partner CalPERS (now "owner of record" on the project and "leasee" of the Turnpike air rights lease) threatened to pull out unless the state guaranteed public assistance. In early 2007, the developers came to the state asking for help; but by April 2008, they hit a brick wall, failing to make it to round two in their quest for a $10 million MORE (Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion) grant. Not long after, MassHousing, the state’s affordable housing agency, withdrew its promise of another $20 million. When asked, the city of Boston, which had already committed $14 million in incentives and tax credits, said, "No more."

Meanwhile, at the same time it was knocking on doors in search of funds, the developer faced a rapidly increasing budget, due to rising labor and material costs. The project had an estimated cost of $300 million when it was proposed in 1996, but that has ballooned to the now estimated $800 million. It sure didn’t help things when the credit crisis hit the commercial markets and residential real estate sales imploded.

If Mr. Winn had been able to pull things together, it would have been possible to ignore the constant drone of complaints from a small but vocal group of residents, neighbors and politicians, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But, he didn’t, it wasn’t, and we are.

The Columbus Center was more than just "luxury condos." It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks - the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much - their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

Blame also lies at the feet of our local elected officials. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, South End State Representative Byron Rushing and Back Bay State Representative Marty Walz each spoke out against public financing for Columbus Center, in effect dooming its chances to move forward. Ironically, at the same time they were expressing astonishment at the very idea of public funds going to a private company, they were supporting legislation that handed out millions (actually, billions) of dollars in subsidies to other projects across the Commonwealth.

For example, Reps. DiMasi and Walz approved $60 million in state spending and incentives to help "persuade" drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb to move to Massachusetts. They’ve both heaped praise on the Massachusetts film-credit incentive program, which the Department of Revenue estimates has cost the state $120 million over the past three years. And just this spring, all three voted in favor of the $1 billion life sciences bill, which authorizes $500 million in borrowed capital spending, an additional $250 million in grants, and another $250 million in tax incentives.

Yet, when it came to helping out someone in their own backyard, our representatives defied logic and suddenly clammed up and clamped down. It’s all well and good to argue against public subsidies on principle, but don’t pull it out as an excuse only when it’s politically expedient or personally beneficial.

What have residents lost, as a result of the project’s failure? Property tax revenues (eventually; the city had promised forgiveness of much of it during the first years), jobs, homes, parks, parking spaces and the conveniences of local shops, for starters. In addition, WinnDevelopment would have been required to include affordable-housing units as part of any new construction or make a significant financial payment into the city’s low-cost housing fund. These community benefits are all gone.

But, this is all water under the bridge, or decks, as it were. I, for one, have given up on the project. One small request, though. Mr. Winn, don’t feel any rush to clean up your construction site; please leave it as is - an enduring testament to the lost chances and broken dreams that define the development process in Boston in the 21st century.

John Keith is a resident of the South End and a real estate broker. Read his blog at bostonREB.com. Matt Byrne contributed to this column.

[tobyjug]

Very wry.

[pelhamhall]

Well-reasoned, well-thought, and well-written.

Once capital becomes available, some developer (hopefully one with deep pockets and an actual history of these types of projects - like BP or Hines) buys the rights to this site for nickels on the dollar and builds it out. I also hope that this new developer rescinds many of the costly neighborhood perks as a contingency of buying.

Leaving the site a scarred, construction-fence barricaded disaster is a very good idea - it'll help increase the value of the development site - just restore the parking.

Oddly enough, by stalling development, the anti-progress neighbors/obstructionists have essentially lost all of their leverage here, and the pendulum has swung back into the developer's favor.

[archboston]

Leaving the site a scarred, construction-fence barricaded disaster is a very good idea - it'll help increase the value of the development site - just restore the parking.

The parking on Cortes was restored over a month ago, after the BVNA made some noise with the city.


I have to assume that the recommendation to leave the site as-is was done a bit tongue-in-cheek. It's easy to make that recommendation when you don't live across the street from it.

Columbus Center debris on one side, a proposed multi-billion dollar MBTA bus terminal on the other... Bay Village is getting hammered by projects without adequate financing or forethought.

[Ron Newman]

Cortes Street supported the development. It's not at all fair to the residents there to leave a mess behind.

[atlrvr]

Can someone take a picture of the "mess" on Cortes St....it's hard for me to visualize how their ideallyic view of the Pike has been somehow marred to the point that it's not longer the scenic overlook it once was.

[KentXie]

The Columbus Center was more than just "luxury condos." It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks - the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much - their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

THANK YOU. See that Ned? The building was economically unfeasible to build. Screw your damn filters and screw your hypothetical profits that the developers could make. The fact stands. The building is unfeasible and building advance vents was impossible unless there were subsidies. Your "developers announced that they will make such and such amount of money" reason is moot. Do you understand why yet? That's because nothing in the future is predictable, just look at this project. During a downturn in the economy, the amount of profit or a developer could make and I stress the word could, is unstable. What happens if CC fails to attract enough tenants? What happen if every building material rises? How about labor? With the inflation in the USD, construction cost would rise. And here is the perfect example. They could build advance filters that can clean up the air (which by the way, no other place has it yet) but they can't, and do you know why? It is unfeasible to do so. It is also possible if the NIMBYs such as yourself, had not delay this project for 10 years by asking for this and that, that there would be enough money to build it and your advance vent filter that you have a crazy obsession with. Instead here you guys, an empty lot devoid of life. You could have so much amenities, a gym, a grocery store but nah, you enjoy your sandbox. Maybe you can make it like the BU "Beach" and pretend the cars going by are the waves crashing against the shore.

[bosdevelopment]

Maybe you can make it like the BU "Beach" and pretend the cars going by are the waves crashing against the shore.

Don't be bring BU Beach into this foray. A whole lotta fingerblasting's been done on that there beach in the past.

[JimboJones]

I think this proves ... yes, Cortes Street is a "mess". There used to be a line of trees between the buildings and the Turnpike, for one thing.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk287/JackoffJones/IMG_3339.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk287/JackoffJones/IMG_3337.jpg

[Dan]

That's because nothing in the future is predictable, just look at this project. During a downturn in the economy, the amount of profit or a developer could make and I stress the word could, is unstable. What happens if CC fails to attract enough tenants? What happen if every building material rises? How about labor? With the inflation in the USD, construction cost would rise. I hear your concerns regarding NIMBY requirements making long-term profitability questionable.

But all developers should be prepared to weather short term ups and downs. If they can't, they shouldn't be in the business. Real Estate is a long term proposition.

[KentXie]

^^Requirements yes but not Ned's advance venting system is not a requirement for building C.C. Ned wished for an advance filtering system that cost a lot more money in installing and time for revisions on the design itself which C.C. would most likely not be able to cover the cost.

[sidewalks]

This may well be a 'be careful what you wish for' moment, but I'll ask the question anyway...

Ned, it appears that Columbus Center is stalled for the forseeable future, if not completely dead. But just a few miles down the turnpike another project is poised to unleash the same type of particulate pollution upon the unsuspecting inhabitants of the Fenway. You have repeatedly claimed that you are fighting Columbus Center on behalf of the public and that you would not move because that would simply subject another person to the same insidious pollution. If this is true, why have you limited your crusade to Columbus Center? Where is the outrage and the flood of newspaper articles, blog postings and public meeting appearances?

[tocoto]

I'm certainly no expert on particulate polluton but it would seem to me:

-the porous concrete walls of a tunnel would absorb a significant amount of the stuff making air cleaner outside the tunnel

-It would be simple matter to put a filter or scrubber on the exhaust system for any tunnel to remove most of the particulates resulting in cleaner air with a tunnel than without.

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: what was known when existing tunnels were designed

. . . As for not enough being known about particulate matter when highway tunnels were being designed two, three, or even one decade ago, that is absolutely not true. There have been standards for particulate matter for decades. It boggles. . .

No need for your mind to get boggled by this, Stellarfun.

Ron Newman asked me how other urban highway tunnels deal with ultrafine particulate matter in their tunnels. I replied to him that existing tunnels were designed before ultrafine particulate matter was well understood, so remediation of it was skipped, not because the tunnels were designed before UFPs were first discovered (they weren’t), but because when the tunnels were designed years ago the 2008 technology did not exist.

The people designing those tunnels weren’t the people studying UFPs.

The tunnel designers said then — and still say today — that they themselves didn’t know — and still don’t know — enough about UFP to design for it. But that is changing.

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Statler’s comparison of SC&L to Columbus Center

We can split this thread a thousand times and it won't matter. This is the only thread Ned will ever visit and he will continue speak out against UFP's in this thread and this thread only.
You don’t know what threads I might visit. You don’t know what I might say when I get there.

I would love for Ned to see what we are doing in the SC&L thread and maybe even lend a hand with some of his media contacts.

Although I agree with the major objections to Druker’s SC&L proposal, there’s no need to add my voice there, since so many others are already working on that.

But in the unprecedented failure at Columbus Center, much of what went wrong has yet to be publicized, and remains unknown to the general public (including forum members). MTA intends to repeat its Columbus Center mistakes across all 23 air rights parcels.

I’m the only one who has come forward with all 15,000 pages of public records. There’s no one else showing journalists, legislators, government agencies, and the public where to look to see the evidence proving how things went awry and how history is poised to repeat itself. So keeping my knowledge and time focused on unresolved air rights issues instead of joining the SC&L chorus is, in the long run, far more preventive and productive.

As long as Drucker 'adheres to the principles', he can destroy the city all he wants and "urban activists" like Ned, won't issue so much as raise a peep.

Being from Salem and Washington, perhaps you don’t know that there are two sets of vastly different “principles” involved at each of the two sites.

Across the state-owned transportation corridor, there is a 101-page Turnpike Master Plan, parcel by parcel, principle by principle. Plenty of people have spoken up about protecting, defending, and respecting it for 8 years, and are continuing to do so.

But there is no master plan that includes Druker’s SC&L site, so Boston’s usual approach is in effect:

● Every Zoning Code provision and waiver is for sale.
● The Zoning Board of Appeal lets developers write their own decisions.
● With the right “campaign donation” to the right elected official, everything that is illegal gets re-labeled as legal.
● The Redevelopment Authority answers to no one but the mayor.
● The mayor always owns just enough city councilors to get whatever he wants from them.
● The mayor is owned by the developers who “donate” to him before, during, and after their proposals; the 11% of voters who elected him are just dispensable afterthoughts.

[Ned Flaherty]

Big Dig oversight law could turn blind eye
By Hillary Chabot • Tuesday, August 19, 2008

A new law aimed at preventing another Big Dig tunnel tragedy may not apply to privately developed projects yet to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike, a prospect that has those behind the legislation scrambling.

“For the highest-risk projects, this new bill would provide no oversight at all,” said Ned Flaherty, a neighborhood activist in the South End.

The new law, signed by Gov. Deval Patrick two weeks ago, compels state agencies to hire an independent engineer to oversee public construction projects in an effort to prevent another tragic tunnel collapse like the 2006 disaster that killed Milena Del Valle.

However, several private companies that lease air rights to develop over the Pike may not have to follow the new law, meaning several high-risk projects slated for Boston wouldn’t trigger the oversight.

“If that arises as an issue, we will put in corrective language,” said Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), one of the lead sponsors of the legislation. “We won’t allow this law to be circumvented.”

Pike officials are currently reviewing the new law to see if it applies to private construction over the tollway. A representative of Inspector General Gregory Sullivan’s office, who worked with lawmakers to create the bill, said current oversight conducted by Pike officials would suffice.

But Flaherty argued state officials also oversaw Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff’s work on the Dig.

“The reason for having an owner’s representative is to make sure someone absolutely independent is checking the work on these projects,” Flaherty said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1113696

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Ned . . . just a few miles down the turnpike another project is poised to unleash the same type of particulate pollution upon the unsuspecting inhabitants of the Fenway. You have repeatedly claimed . . . that you would not move because that would simply subject another person to the same insidious pollution. . .

No, I never said that. What I said — in reply to you, at post #645, on 3 April — was that I am staying to fix the problem, as opposed to running away from it:

“. . . my goal is to ensure that MTA, MBTA, CSX, and their many developers collectively remedy the UFP problem. . .
. . . whereas you prefer I go elsewhere, I prefer to stay here and solve the problem. . .
. . . if residents across the city choose to vent UFP pollution into their homes instead of curing it at the source, then I probably will move several blocks north or south.”

. . . Why have you limited your crusade to Columbus Center?

Although for 13 years, my work has been concentrated at Columbus Center, it was never — and is not now — restricted to just that. But, as the city’s longest running urban planning failure, this project’s story shall continue for quite some time.

. . .Where is the outrage and the flood of newspaper articles, blog postings and public meeting appearances?
They’ve been underway for years. Coverage and comments are expected from lots of voices and many sources. The review process hasn’t begun yet.

[stellarfun]

Re: what was known when existing tunnels were designed



No need for your mind to get boggled by this, Stellarfun.

Ron Newman asked me how other urban highway tunnels deal with ultrafine particulate matter in their tunnels. I replied to him that existing tunnels were designed before ultrafine particulate matter was well understood, so remediation of it was skipped, not because the tunnels were designed before UFPs were first discovered (they weren’t), but because when the tunnels were designed years ago the 2008 technology did not exist.

The people designing those tunnels weren’t the people studying UFPs.

The tunnel designers said then — and still say today — that they themselves didn’t know — and still don’t know — enough about UFP to design for it. But that is changing.

You have continued to postulate that technology to scrub UFPs from highway sources exists, and yet have not produced a single example of such technology being built and used, anywhere.

[statler]

Re: Statler’s comparison of SC&L to Columbus Center


You don’t know what threads I might visit. You don’t know what I might say when I get there.

I also don't know if I'm going to win the lottery tonight but based on past experience I going come right out and say 'no'.


Although I agree with the major objections to Druker’s SC&L proposal, there’s no need to add my voice there, since so many others are already working on that.
None of the others seem to have the media contacts (or at least the ability to get their say in the papers) that you have. It's a compliment to you Ned. You are very good at what you do.


Being from Salem and Washington, perhaps you[...]
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/374380073_90f1091732_t.jpg

You may have me confused with someone else.

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: UFP remediation example

You have continued to postulate that technology to scrub UFPs from highway sources exists, and yet have not produced a single example of such technology being built and used, anywhere.

Yes, the technology exists to design and build vents that remove UFPs from the tunnel air before it’s expelled into offices and homes above and nearby. No, it has not been used this way yet. But don’t misinterpret the fact that because this application has not yet been built elsewhere the technology doesn't exist for building it here. If everyone behaved that way, then mankind would never have built anything new at all. The people working on this (not me) will make the announcement.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^please show an example of this technology, and a website of a company currently making them.

[sidewalks]

Although for 13 years, my work has been concentrated at Columbus Center, it was never — and is not now — restricted to just that. But, as the city’s longest running urban planning failure, this project’s story shall continue for quite some time.


They’ve been underway for years. Coverage and comments are expected from lots of voices and many sources. The review process hasn’t begun yet.


Ummm...point in fact, Ned. To date, you have posted 186 times on this forum. To my knowledge you have posted exclusively on the Columbus Center thread. So contrary to your claim, it is demonstrably apparent that your work IS RESTRICTED to Columbus Center. Again, if your public spirited crusade to save the citizens of Boston is sincere it stands to reason that you would raise the issue of UFP pollution in every available public forum; especially when the Kenmore project is so inextricably linked to Columbus Center. If you want me to dig back through the posts to find where you pontificate on the need to save everyone in the I90 and 93 corrdiors I will. The bottom line is that your protests smack of self interest when the same "problem" goes unchallenged just two miles down the road. As for your claim that 'the review process hasn't begun yet'...that's simply nonsense. There have been several public meetings and the project is being debated on the pages of Boston's newspapers. Again, if your interest were sincere the time for advocacy would be now.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . you have posted exclusively on the Columbus Center thread. So . . . your work IS RESTRICTED to Columbus Center

You assume that I’m not active in other venues outside this Forum, and that I’m not active on other issues outside Columbus Center. _ Both assumptions are incorrect.

I have long worked on a number of issues, including Columbus Center. _ I concentrate my efforts in the places that really count and that produce the best results. _ Very low priority are bulletin boards like this, where most messages are from anonymous members, who skipped the hundreds of public meetings, didn’t read the 1,331-page proposal, shunned the 3,400-page lease, and ignored most of the 15,000 pages of public records.

. . . it stands to reason that you would raise the issue of UFP pollution in every available public forum; especially when the Kenmore project is so inextricably linked to Columbus Center. . . your protests smack of self interest when the same "problem" goes unchallenged just two miles down the road.

Your assumption that the problem has “gone unchallenged” is incorrect. _ I raised the UFP issue in venues that are far more effective than this one. _ I challenged the problem along the entire I-90 and I-93 corridors. _ I am continuing those efforts, and others. _ And I am not the only person doing this.

. . . As for your claim that 'the review process hasn't begun yet'...that's simply nonsense. There have been several public meetings and the project is being debated on the pages of Boston's newspapers. Again, if your interest were sincere the time for advocacy would be now.

The meetings and newspaper articles over the past few years were all about proposals that got revised, replaced, and/or withdrawn. _ One Kenmore’s first full proposal was filed only last week. _ No public meetings have been held yet. _ Yes, my interests are sincere. _ Yes, the time for advocacy is now. _ Be patient. _ And observe.

[Ned Flaherty]

RE: Money & Time

. . . The building was economically unfeasible to build. . .

No. _ None of the 6 buildings were ever unfeasible. _ If you’re still having trouble understanding that, then read the developers’ own construction cost studies.

. . . screw your hypothetical profits that the developers could make. . .

I did not hypothesize the profits. _ The profits I’ve quoted were all the developers’ own figures, supplied by them — under pains and penalties of perjury. _If you’re still having trouble understanding that, then read the developers’ own subsidy applications.

. . .With the inflation in the USD, construction cost would rise.

Like many politicians, many forum members, and even some journalists, you’ve fallen for the biggest fallacy of all: _ that costs constantly rose, but prices never rose.

Comparing the developers’ own cost studies to real estate sale prices shows that the tunnels and buildings themselves have always been economically feasible, because — as the developers explained on 10 September 2004 in the Boston Herald — construction costs and sale prices rise and fall together. _ They remain aligned closely enough so that the two industries (construction and sales) keep each other in business.

. . .if the NIMBYs such as yourself, had not delay this project for 10 years by asking for this and that, that there would be enough money to build it

Blaming money and time problems on concerned citizens is another favorite fallacy of the BEEARNs (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what). _ But here’s the proof that all money and time problems were self-inflicted by the developers.

MONEY • The bankers wrote 19 pages of reasons why they didn’t risk their money on this, but never suggested that deleting community amenities could help approve loans for a project that did not qualify to begin with.

TIME • The review process took only 3 years (2001-2003), but the developers wasted another 10 years planning to beg agencies for tax dollars (1996 - 2000 and 2004 - 2008). _ Furthermore, the Turnpike’s latest lease draft allows construction to start in 2010, but not finish until 2025. _ That 1996-to-2025 time line is entirely the developers’ own scheme. _ For this 29-year stretch, blame only the development team, including profit-sharing business partner MTA, which for 13 years has granted every extension request.

. . . You could have so much amenities, a gym, a grocery store. . .

The South End, Back Bay, and Bay Village already have many gyms and convenience stores, so adding more trinkets like that was never a compelling reason for a proposal with so many truly serious problems.

. . . nah, you enjoy your sandbox.

Nobody has advocated for keeping the turnpike as it is. _ But citizens are right to demand: _ competitive bids, from qualified teams, for Master-Plan-compliant designs, with full financial disclosure proving that the proposals are truly subsidy-free. _ None of that occurred, so the public’s thumbs-down response remains justified.

Anger Management • Your fury over feasibility, profits, costs, and calendar may feel righteous to you, but it is wholly mis-directed. _ These things are all the responsibility of — and controlled by — development teams, not communities._ Your disappointment over the proposal’s failure is best directed mainly at the would-be profiteers: _ CalPERS, CUIP, MURC, CWCC, and MTA.

[sidewalks]

"Very low priority are bulletin boards like this one"...Oh Ned, you old ham. Me thinks thou doth protest too much...your anthology of posts might indicate that this anonymous bulletin board is more than just 'very low priority'...in any event, I breathlessly await your heroic intervention in Kenmore Square.

I think it's time for a UFP-man superhero...batman is passe. Maybe a green lantern inspired hero who dons carbon filters at night to fight the ultra fine particulate villains.

[sidewalks]

Ned,

By the way...can you point out evidence of the claim you make below? Specifically I would be interested in hearing about those instances where you have raised the UFP issue that are not related to Columbus Center. And how about your UFP compatriots? Anybody else holding that banner who isn't also a NIMBY opponent of Columbus Center?

"I raised the UFP issue in venues that are far more effective than this one. I challenged the problem along the entire I-90 and I-93 corridors. I am continuing those efforts, and others. And I am not the only person doing this."

[underground]

Like many politicians, many forum members, and even some journalists, you’ve fallen for the biggest fallacy of all: _ that costs constantly rose, but prices never rose.
Prices never rose? Seems kinda inconcievable. Actually, I take that back; it is inconcievable!

[stellarfun]

Re: UFP remediation example



Yes, the technology exists to design and build vents that remove UFPs from the tunnel air before it’s expelled into offices and homes above and nearby. No, it has not been used this way yet. But don’t misinterpret the fact that because this application has not yet been built elsewhere the technology doesn't exist for building it here. If everyone behaved that way, then mankind would never have built anything new at all. The people working on this (not me) will make the announcement.
Ned, I am not arguing that technology does not exist to scrub UFPs from being vented into the atmosphere. I am arguing that to scale up this technology to scrub the volume of air that you remove every minute from the Columbus Center tunnel would require an enormous building -- a few pages back I said the building would be bigger than Tommy's Tower -- and would be a very costly facility to operate. Not only would this scrubber remove UFPs, but particulates and fine particulates as well.

I looked up an EPA fact sheet on Venturi scrubbers, which remove particulates and fine particulates, but not UFPs. Venturi scrubbers can scrub up to 100,000 cubic meters of air a minute. (Somewhere in the ancient history of this thread is a value for the volume of air you would have to scrub every minute from the tunnel; its very large.) The EPA fact sheet states annual O&M costs for a Venturi scrubber can be as much as $254,000 per cubic meter per second scrubbed from a capacity standpoint. (If you had a Venturi scrubber that scrubbed 1000 cubic meters of air a second, the annual operating cost could be $250,400,000. A 1000 cubic meters is roughly equivalent a room 30' by 10' by 10')

When you extrapolate up to account for the amount of air that would need to be scrubbed for the Columbus Center tunnel, the annual operating cost for the scrubbers could be greater than the capital cost of the project.

[ablarc]

^ One cubic meter = 35.3146667 cubic feet. You're off by more than ten times in your room size.

Fishy science all around or just here?