Columbus Center: RIP

[stellarfun]

^ 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?

Yep, I erred badly. As you said, I was off by a factor of 10, so a very long room: 350' by 10' by 10'. So the annual O&M costs would be much less on a volume basis, although for a tunnel the size of that under Columbus Center, still potentially in the many tens of millions of dollars.

[KentXie]

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.


Wrong, if that was true, then the developers would not require or ask for subsidies to build the skyscraper. The fact is due to rising cost and a downturn in the market, the developers may not see profit for a long time, maybe in the long-term they will but not soon enough. If you still don't understand that, learn about inflation and rising gas prices.


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.

The profits are still hypothesized regardless. Profits is never a set number. It's an estimate and an estimation can be close to the real result or very far from it. If you are having understand it, read about supply and demand and how rising cost and a weaken economy affects it.


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.

Again, you ignore the basic rules of economics. Inflation is rising at a faster rate than growth. In other words, the value of the dollar has been decreasing over the past years. Money that the developers had, is worth less and thus requires more dollars, something they will not receive until the project is built and are filled. Let me give you an example:

John has $12 to buy a game one day. He decides not to buy it until the next day. The next day, the dollar weakens and the price of the game rises up to $18. John is unable to buy that game since his dollars are worth less and cannot afford it until he receives an income. Put the same format to CC.

You also seem to have trouble understanding the effects of rising sales price. When cost to live in the building rises, the incentive for the consumer to buy a housing unit decrease. In other words, as the cost of a unit rises, the number of possible tenants decrease due to a lower quantity demanded. This happens to coincide with a housing market that has been in trouble since the housing bubble popped which shook consumer confidence. The outcome is lower demand.

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.

And blaming all the problems on the developer is another favorite fallacy of NIMBYs (Not in my backyard). The developers are not required to build an advance scrubbing filter for its vent and using that as an argument is moot.

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.

I never said it was a compelling reason to build this proposal but hey I guess you enjoy a sandbox more than this so have fun with it.


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.

Save your self-righteous attitude for someone who actually cares. Instead of talking about the ire you draw from me and other forumers, you might actually want to tweak your elitist, spoiled attitude first. Many of your post are written in a way that shows that you look down on us. Listen, you do not speak for all people, just those who attend your little club. Your posts are obviously biased, only looking for the negative points but never the positive ones . You are no better than any of the other NIMBYs who selfishly cares about himself more than anyone else. I highly question your faith in protecting your fellow residents from UFP near CC when it is more likely, you are protecting yourself. If you didn't live near there, you wouldn't give a thought about those residents living there.

[Tim Jackson]

I have sat back and observed this forum (and sparring match between Ned and the other forum members) for some time now, and I now have finally felt like I know enough to hold my own in a conversation (I am still far behind the other more experienced members to be sure, but I intend to learn).

A year ago, I was one of the people who admired height and good appearance and not much else. One year ago I would have said, without a second thought, that the Columbus Center should be built as is immediately. Today, my view has changed a little.

The forum members who unequivocally support this proposal will be happy to know that I am still in favor of the proposal, but I do have some issues with developers and proposal, mainly the requirement of public subsidy (see below). It seems like there are several main points being fiercely debated here, so I will toss my views in as well.

On the topic of UFPs, I do believe that they are harmful, but I am also not in the camp that this should be the reason that the Columbus Center collapses. The UFPs are already there. If people really want to make a serious effort to curb UFPs, you need to attack it at the source - the diesel trains and trucks that travel along that corridor. I am not educated enough on ways to accomplish that, so I will not try and offer some answer to the problem, but the developers shouldn't have their project sunk because of this.

As far as the master plan is concerned, I do agree that some sort of plan and set of guidelines is needed to make sure the tunneling of the Pike doesn't turn into an uncoordinated mess, but to not allow any kind of wiggle room is ridiculous in my opinion. I will use the debate regarding the two acre park as an example. To require CalPERS to develop another major open space in the area would provide almost TOO much open green space. The obvious ones are the Common and Public Garden, but Commonwealth Mall is also nearby. Too many large public open spaces aren't good in the heart of a city.

Concerning the lack of a competitive bid, this issue has me a little on edge. For the most part, I feel like the Columbus Center proposal is solid, but I cannot help but think that, if it had been put out for a proper bidding amongst developers, could we have A) ended up with an even better proposal, and B) would a more competent developer stepped up and would have this then been built by now?

The big thing with me is demand for public subsidies, especially after they promised it would be subsidy free. Granted, I do not pay taxes yet (I am a freshman in college), but I look at my dad and if I was in his position, I wouldn't want his money going to this project. Over the next eight years, he will need to fork over about $400,000 for both my sister and I to go to college. This makes finances a bit tight. I know my dad and I would both like to see his money go towards something other than private developments. If they need to shrink and rework the project to lift the need for public subsidy, but I know that I wouldn't want my money going towards it (if I was actually paying taxes).

In conclusion, I want to see this project go through, I want to see this proposal get built (as is), and I want to see that 35 story tower go up just like the Clarendon next door. My only hesitation is the public subsidy issue, as I could see that money going towards far more beneficial initiatives.

[palindrome]

Excellent first post. Welcome to the forums!

I completely agree about attacking UFP's at their source. Ned, why has there not been any type of lawsuit against MBTA, MTA, CSX? (or has there?)

[Wocket]

I am shocked Ned didn't already post his latest contribution to the South End News, so here goes. I wonder if i am the only person who has tired of reading him as a source on this story.


The truth is in the public records
by Ned Flaherty
MySouthEnd.com Contributor
Thursday Aug 21, 2008

Boston’s biggest urban planning failure, the Columbus Center, is a complex pile of pretty watercolors, arcane legal maneuvers, clerical errors, and public relations ploys. Now in its 13th year of being re-proposed, many of the myths have been uncovered, while others still haven’t come to light.

Among the most misled are people on the real estate industry gravy train, where every proposal is another profit opportunity. The brokers, bankers, attorneys, architects, builders, media spinners, lobbyists, and hobbyists should check the public records before making assumptions about a story that began before many of them were even working here.

Nine of the most popular myths were repeated in John Keith’s column, "Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers" (August 14).

So here - straight from the public records - are the facts.

1. No one should assume that the proposal failed because three state representatives opposed subsidizing it. Most of our 200 state legislators and most of their constituents have long opposed wasting public dollars on a proposal that got approved by dishonestly posing as subsidy-free. But the proposal wasn’t killed by legislators or constituents. The developers killed it, by promising Massachusetts taxpayers that there would be no subsidies, then promising California investors that Massachusetts would subsidize both costs and profits, and then getting caught.

2. No one should believe that neighbors somehow made the buildings "economically unfeasible." The developers’ own construction cost analyses and real estate sale prices show that the tunnels and buildings themselves have always been economically feasible, because construction costs and sale prices rise and fall together, as the developers explained on September 10, 2004 in the Boston Herald. But while the buildings themselves remained feasible, the overall project became increasingly unfeasible as the developers deceived investors and told them that:

• taxpayers would subsidize both costs and profits;
• condominium owners would repay the 50-year state construction loans;
• condominium owners would pay the Turnpike 99 years of rent for air space; and
• condominium owners would inspect, maintain, repair, upgrade, replace, and insure the publicly used tunnels over seven acres of the 14-lane interstate transportation corridor forever.

3. No one should fall for the fable that investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew funding for the project - they never promised any in the first place. On May 10, 2006, the bank offered to consider an application for up to $437,600,000, but only if the developers met all commercial lending criteria by September 8, 2006. The developers didn’t qualify, the loan wasn’t applied for, and the bank’s offer expired. It was never renewed, revised, or replaced. But the bank didn’t back out of the loan; instead, the developers never qualified enough to even apply for it.

Even though no loans were ever issued, for years the developers wrote subsidy applications - under penalties and pains of perjury - claiming that they already had 100 percent of the financing.

4. No neighbors ever "extorted" public parks from the developer. The Turnpike Master Plan was enacted long before the public process started, and requires two acres of contiguous public parkland. The promises to build public parks were just the developers’ weak efforts to partly comply with that plan.

Moreover, the public didn’t extort parks from the developer, but the developer did steal parks from the public. On December 14, 2006, the developers quietly converted the promised public parks into privately owned gardens over which the public has no control and no recourse.

5. CalPERS’s threatened pull-out didn’t occur in 2007. That threat came in one year earlier. It was shortly after signing the Turnpike’s lease in May 2006 that California - meaning California Public Employees Retirement System, now the principal in the project - threatened to cancel if Massachusetts didn’t arrange a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies.

6. The developers never raised "at least $250 million." No subsidy agency ever disbursed any funds. No bank ever issued any construction loans. By early 2008, California’s lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority had been in default for nearly two years, so exasperated Turnpike officials insisted on $294,461,484 in completion guarantees. But California declined.

In early April, California’s Boston-based managers flew to the west coast and begged, but came back empty-handed. In early July, the project’s owners at CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC imposed a news blackout on all journalists. Any venture that had actually raised $250 million wouldn’t behave this way.

7. Brokers eager to sell more luxury condominiums blame the proposal’s failure on "approval delays." That’s also untrue. The review process took only three years (from 2001 to 2003), but the developers wasted 10 years (1996 to 2000 and 2004 to 2008) planning to beg agencies for tax dollars. The Turnpike’s latest draft of the lease allows construction to start in 2010, but not finish until 2025.

8. Real estate people call community participation "constant meddling" because the profiteers see communities as trampling on their private revenue. But concerned citizens have the right to question any proposal, especially one from developers who paid a governor $10,000 to prohibit competitors, who refused public audits, and who violated the Turnpike Master Plan.

9. No one should bemoan the community benefits as "lost." No existing benefits have been lost, and potential future benefits have only been postponed. Qualified developers will eventually write competitive proposals that offer jobs, homes, parks, stores, affordability, and tax revenue. What has been lost is 13 years of time wasted listening to the drumbeat of re-proposals from California’s Columbus Center.


Whenever a project is proposed, real estate people threaten the public with "losing benefits" if approval isn’t rapid. But truly good proposals can succeed no matter when they’re approved, and proposals that only work in frothy economies are fundamentally unfeasible, and should be disapproved. Rushing a review is never necessary, and only invites a bad ending.

And whenever a project fails, the real estate industry finds apologists to blame everyone else: the taxpayers who wouldn’t pay for it, the bankers who wouldn’t finance it, and - most often - the review process that killed the precious golden goose. But public reviews are not mere formalities to be endured; they are a series of tests put in place not just to approve worthy proposals, but also to halt unworthy ones. Honest, feasible proposals survive that process.

Massachusetts taxpayers care how their money gets spent and they decided not to fund California’s costs and profits. Bankers shun losses, and none have risked any money on this proposal. Even the owners themselves stopped funding it.

The fact that community scrutiny of public records helped expose Columbus Center’s flaws proves that our public processes are - thankfully - working as designed.

Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder and former Ellis South End Neighborhood Association vice president Ned Flaherty supports air rights development citywide, and opposes Master Plan violations such as those that led to the failure of California’s Columbus Center.

[JimboJones]

I don't even know how to respond to that.

My column was reviewed around 20 times by the editor at the South End News. If there are any holes in my arguments, they were missed by both me and by her.

Saying that brokers only approve of this project because it will mean more money in their pockets is laughable. In fact, one posted here at the forum has suggested that the opposite is true - that brokers should be against new buildings, since it increases supply and lowers prices, meaning less money in their pockets.

Ned constantly sees enemies where there are none. In one post here, he says that everyone but he has missed important things about this project. Public officials, residents, the press, the pope ... the list goes on. Only he, he says, has read the 30,000 pages (w/e) of documents, only he knows what's REALLY going on.

I am a resident of the South End. I support the project. It's that simple.

** Oh, irony of ironies - several of the 9 mistakes Ned points out cannot be mistakes ... for sources, I used data provided by him, here on the forum! More on this, later.

[JimboJones]

Here is a bit more from the South End News:

MySouthEnd.com (http://mysouthend.com)

Keith gets it wrong on Columbus Center
To the editor:

I strongly disagree with many of the statements made by John Keith in his editorial. The project known as Columbus Center went sour from its very inception. Rather than go out to bid, Winn/Cassin was granted the sole right to build on these parcels without any other input from other possible developers.

During the many CAC meetings, the neighborhood(s) you recently accused of killing this project requested financial information. It was never revealed to the public. Perhaps had this information been made available, much of the mess that the project is in could have been avoided.

You seem to point fingers at seemingly greedy neighbors but I have no doubt that it is the developers who are greedy.

I don’t know where you reside, but if you were an abutter to this proposed monstrosity you would be singing a different tune.

J. Komarow


CORRECTION
In John Keith’s opinion piece last week, "Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand father," he indicated that MassHousing withdrew a $20 million loan from the Columbus Center project. According to MassHousing, the agency did not withdraw the loan, but rather did not choose to close on it. We regret the mischaracterization.

[atlrvr]

Recipe for news article:

Add 1 cup of complete lack of knowledge of real estate finance
Add 2 tablespoons of mis-association between a Pension fund and a state government
Apply liberal amount of conjecture
Mix briskly with semantics
Carefully season with UFP's (warning: overuse has been speculted to possibly lead to premature death in a small portion of old people)
Bake for years
Serve with a commanding sense of (mislead) authority

[Wocket]

So I noticed Neds tagline at the end of his piece was different from a previous one I had all but memorized. I thought it would be a great use of my time to see how the media decide characterize his role in the story of Columbus Center. A smattering of results are below.

Ned Flaherty, former neighborhood association vice president and Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder, has studied Turnpike air rights since moving to the South End 18 years ago. He strongly supports air rights development, but opposes the public process failures that resulted in the Columbus Center disaster. -SEN

Urban planning activist Ned Flaherty has been researching air rights development since 1993, and tracking the proposed Columbus Center since 1996. -SEN

Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder and former Ellis South End Neighborhood Association vice president Ned Flaherty supports air rights development citywide, and opposes Master Plan violations such as those that led to the failure of California’s Columbus Center. -SEN

...Flaherty, an urban planner and cofounder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, who has been closely watching the project for many years. -Globe

said Ned Flaherty, a neighborhood activist and Columbus Center opponent -Herald

Kudos to SEN's Scott Kearnan who got it right in “Columbus Center countdown” (May 29, 2008)
“Clarendon Street resident and longtime critic of the project Ned Flaherty…”

[Ned Flaherty]

RE: U.F.P.s

^^please show an example of this technology, and a website of a company currently making them.

The application of this technology to this problem is not mass manufactured, so you can’t just “see a website of a company making them”. _ Existing tunnels don’t use the latest technology in the ways that it would be applied here, so an example does not exist yet.

. . . 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?. . .

There’s no such thing as raising the UFP issue “not related to Columbus Center” because the issue exists all along both urban interstate corridors, and every time the issue gets raised, government agencies focus most heavily on the sites then under review (currently parcels CANA-4, CANA-2, parcels 12-13-14-15, parcel 7, parcels 16-17-18-19).

No need to list Boston’s journalists here; they’re well enough known.

On this issue, the agencies that heard from me during 2006-2007-2008, and from others for quite a few years before that, include: Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Department of Public Health, Boston Environment Department, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. _ Other city, state, and federal agencies have also heard from other individuals and organizations, who periodically publish both their efforts and their results.

Ned, I am not arguing that technology does not exist to scrub UFPs . . . I am arguing that to scale up this technology . . . would require an enormous building . . . and would be a very costly facility to operate. Not only would this scrubber remove UFPs, but particulates and fine particulates as well.

Stellarfun, I am not arguing that there’s no cost, or that there’s any specific cost. _ But the ten-fold increase for many existing residents would be intolerable, inexcusable, and unnecessary. _ Whenever a proposal would do harm to people in existing homes and offices, the only responsible options are: _ build differently, or build elsewhere, or don’t build. _ Building differently — remediating the problem — seems the best choice.

On the topic of UFPs, I do believe that they are harmful . . . The UFPs are already there. . .

Thanks, Tim, for being one of the few identified forum members (most are anonymous).

UFPs aren’t just “already there”. _ The proposal is to capture all the existing pollution, concentrate it, and vent it at precise locations, which for many of the tens of thousands of workers and residents along both corridors, produces a ten-fold increase over what they suffer now. _ For the few people several blocks from any vent at all, exposure should decrease. But for anyone within a few blocks of a vent, the public health risks increase.

As far as the master plan is concerned . . . some sort of plan and set of guidelines is needed to make sure the tunneling of the Pike doesn't turn into an uncoordinated mess, but to not allow any kind of wiggle room is ridiculous. . .

The Turnpike Master Plan adopted in 2000 generously includes alternatives for every parcel. _ Whenever Parcel 16 exceeds 15 stories, a 2-acre public park is required on Parcel 18. _ Whenever Parcel 18 has no park, Parcel 16 is limited to 15 stories. _ There are plenty of options.

RE: Economics

Prices never rose? . . . it is inconcievable!

Yes, it is inconceivable that prices never rose. _ But that’s exactly the developers’ ploy. _ They argue that every public dollar they seek became necessary because costs rose (but prices did not). Their subsidy requests argue that only costs rose, but their loan applications admit that sale prices rose, too. Pull and read the 15 subsidy requests, then pull the loan applications, and notice that sales of $1,146,096,618 less costs of $800,000,000 = $346,096,618 — a healthy profit that needs no subsidy at all.

. . . if that was true, then the developers would not require or ask for subsidies to build the skyscraper.

These developers ask for subsidies for 3 reasons: _ (1) because they can; (2) because people fall for the “costs went up” excuse and forget that sales went up, too; and (3) because every subsidy dollar lowers their cost and boosts their profit — at public expense.

[Ned Flaherty]

Menino wants assurances from developers

Mayor seeks new rule after financial tie-ups

By Casey Ross • Globe Staff • August 21, 2008

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino wants to require developers of large projects to obtain financing before they win permission to dig up the city.

His call follows financial problems for two high-profile developments that have already begun construction in Boston: the $650 million redevelopment of the Filene's building in Downtown Crossing and the $800 million Columbus Center complex over the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Menino is having city planners devise a regulation that would delay approvals for developers who cannot show adequate financial backing to proceed with construction. The regulation is an attempt to prevent city streets from being at the mercy of credit markets that can suddenly stall or upend projects.

"We already have two or three holes in our landscape; we don't want any more," said Menino. "We don't want to stifle development, but we don't want developers to take advantage of the city."

The mayor spoke yesterday after the Globe reported that the developers of the 38-story commercial and residential tower on the former Filene's property have been unable to raise financing because credit markets have severely tightened in the wake of the subprime mortgage debacle.

The project is the cornerstone of Menino's effort to remake Downtown Crossing into a destination shopping district in the heart of the city. Almost a year after receiving city permits, the developers have only begun to excavate a portion of the site for its new foundation.

Menino and officials at the Boston Redevelopment Authority said they have been working on the policy for several days and that they were not spurred to action solely by Filene's or any other development. A draft of the regulation indicates that $12 billion in projects are currently under development in the city, and points out that many neighborhoods might have to put up with abandoned or vacant construction sites if tight credit markets continue to delay construction.

An executive with a leading development group said the mayor's regulation is unworkable and would have a chilling effect on future projects.

"It will become a barrier to development. The market just doesn't work that way," said David Begelfer, Massachusetts director of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. "To react this way because of the current abnormality in the credit market, I don't think is very prudent."

Other individual developers, including those for the Filene's and Columbus Center projects, declined to comment.

Lenders have been wary of making commercial real estate loans since the subprime mortgage crisis erupted last summer and caused heavy losses at investment banks and other financing firms.

The team trying to build the Columbus Center halted construction on the giant mixed-used complex this year after developers lost some of their private financing as well as some state subsidies.

The draft of Menino's regulation indicates that developers would have to show proof of financing within 18 months of city approval in order to move forward with construction. If they fail to do so, they would have to ask the city for an extension of their permits.

The Filene's project received its city approval in August 2007, while the Columbus Center project was approved in July 2003.

To take effect, the regulation needs the BRA board's approval.

The mayor said the policy would also help the city control the practice of "flipping," in which developers get approval for a project, carry out demolition and other site work, and then sell it for a profit.

"Too many times developers come in, get approvals, sit on it and make all the money off the city," Menino said. "It's an issue we have to get a hold of."

[pelhamhall]

Pick up a copy of South End News from one year ago, count the pages dedicated to real estate ads.

Pick up a copy next month and do the same count.

The unofficial boycott of real estate advertisers has begun - people in the industry are unhappy, and they have the right to be.

You simply cannot be considered a "news paper" when you allow these types of activities to occur on your pages. And if you exhibit a pattern of disdain towards the real estate industry, you should stop asking the real estate industry to subsidize your enterprise.

[Wocket]

Ironically, Winn Co. is still a regular advertiser.

[KentXie]

(2)because people fall for the “costs went up” excuse and forget that sales went up, too;
I really think you should read a book about economics or take a class in that subject. Sure, the real value of the project has not changed, but the amount of dollars it takes to match that value does change. Higher price of a housing unit will lead to a lower demand because those in the price range of the original sales price will be eliminated from the market This is because they are 1) no longer able to afford it or 2) no longer willing to spend that amount of money for that unit. Inflation is out pacing the increases in wages for people and so they no longer have the same purchasing power that they had before. Please tell me you understand that.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Higher price . . . will lead to a lower demand because those in the price range of the original sales price will be eliminated from the market . . . because they are 1) no longer able to afford it or 2) no longer willing to spend that amount of money . . . inflation is out pacing the increases in wages

DarkFenX, all the above statements are generally true for average wage earners, but largely irrelevant for most of Columbus Center’s customers. _ The investor prospectus (given to California) and the banker brochure (given to subsidy agencies and lenders) both characterize the project’s customers as immune to the housing, wage, and inflation issues that affect everyone else.

Those documents confirm Columbus Center as:

• “Boston’s premier address”
• “world-class amenities like nothing Boston has ever seen”
• “the ultimate in sky living”
• “the city’s answer to Rodeo Drive [Beverly Hills] and Fifth Avenue [New York City]”

The issues you’re thinking of do exist, but not for people from Rodeo Drive.

[pelhamhall]

Advertisers sometime advertise to sell a product, other time to buy influence.

Winn & Company and all of their colleagues should really think about this in light of the constant "Neighbors Fear Shadows" articles that are generically milled through the printing presses, with only the names of the project and neighbor-whose-view-is-blocked changed.

Do people buy or rent condos anymore from a little free rag they get at the pizza shop?

Has any influence been bought with the constant drumbeat of "Shadows Anger Neighbors" articles? Where are the "Neighbors Largely Support Plan" articles? "In a neighborhood of 17,000 people, only 23 took the time to show up and complain about the project -almost all of whom will have their views directly impacted. When stopped on the street, almost everyone we showed the plans to shrugged and said 'looks good to me'" How about an article like that every now and then? How about some "reporting" instead of just calling Kressel or Waltz for a canned anti-progress quote that could be transfered to any development in the city?

Can the paper be considered credible for allowing a nutty professor WHO'S VIEWS WILL BE BLOCKED to write about a project as if he had some credibility? Especially when he is quoted making quite literally crazy comments about the cost of building over the pike not being any different than on flat land right here on this forum???

[Ron Newman]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that a newspaper should give in to moneyed interests instead of covering all points of view within the community it serves.

[pelhamhall]

They don't cover all points of view - just one point of view "Neighbors Worry About Shadows, Height at XYZ Project"

That's the one, singular point of view they cover on all developments.

How about a follow-up article about the huge success of Atelier to counter the dozens, dozens of "Atelier Project to Destroy South End" articles that they ran during that process?

How about one article that simply states "Prudential Center Plan Gets Thumbs Up From Most" with a throwaway line like "there were a small handful of well-known activists who used their same complaints against 500 Boylston, 222 Berkeley, 299 Huntington, Copley Place, Trinity Place, 111 Huntington, etc, etc."

Instead "Prudential Center Towers To Cast Shadows Across Back Bay"

Please.

One point of view, and one point of view only. Maybe they can get the activists to pay for their business. Real estate firms should use their money more wisely.

[Tim Jackson]

The Turnpike Master Plan adopted in 2000 generously includes alternatives for every parcel. _ Whenever Parcel 16 exceeds 15 stories, a 2-acre public park is required on Parcel 18. _ Whenever Parcel 18 has no park, Parcel 16 is limited to 15 stories. _ There are plenty of options.

I don't consider that to be 'plenty of options.' Saying that the developer must create a 2-acre continuous park if Parcel 16 is above 150 ft. is very restricting and limits the potential of the proposals. Rather, having one or two smaller, more intimate parks is far more beneficial.

Of course, it all depends on the final product, the design, and how the parks are maintained, but a 2 acre park next door to the Public Garden and the Common is a little overkill, no?

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Do people buy or rent condos anymore from a little free rag they get at the pizza shop?

South End residents and businesses do make decisions based on the content of the South End News, which has successfully carried real estate advertising from satisfied repeat customers for 29 years.

Can the paper be considered credible for allowing a nutty professor WHO'S VIEWS WILL BE BLOCKED to write. . . crazy comments about the cost of building over the pike not being any different than on flat land right here on this forum???

As I confirmed in April, the proposed project has been proven not to block my views, so there’s no problem there.

And regarding total development cost (acquisition + construction + financing + administration), MTA records show the total costs the same or less over air rights than for equivalent buildings over land. _ The mythical “deck premium” does not exist. _ That is why the owners refuse to allow a public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.

Misunderstanding about this is common, especially among the hobbyist and student forum members, who mistakenly interpret “total development cost” to mean only “construction” cost. _ It also is common among people who — because they are (or hope to be) part of the Columbus Center gravy train — refuse to acknowledge what the public records show about cost, revenue, profit, and subsidy.

[Ned Flaherty]

I don't consider that to be 'plenty of options.' Saying that the developer must create a 2-acre continuous park if Parcel 16 is above 150 ft. is very restricting and limits the potential of the proposals.

Well before the Columbus Center proposal, the many private and public authors of the Master Plan decided that that requirement was not restrictive. _ The developers violated the Master Plan as soon as they realized they’d get far more profit if they replaced that public open space with a 663-car garage of $100,000 parking spaces.

Rather, having one or two smaller, more intimate parks is far more beneficial. . . a 2 acre park next door to the Public Garden and the Common is a little overkill, no?
Multiple smaller parks are sometimes better, sometimes not. _ But the proposed open space remains far below the required 2-acre total. _ And regardless of size, the proposed site is 5 city blocks south of the Public Garden, and 7 south of the Boston Common, not at all “next door”.

[statler]

the many private and public authors of the Master Plan decided that

You know what other group of public and private citizens authored a Master Plan?

(Now that's how you Godwin a thread! ;))

[Wocket]

Ned,

As a student, hobbyist and a part of the CC gravy train all at once, you can understand my misunderstanding this completely. Can you more thoroughly explain how building a 30 story building over and operating interstate highway can equal or be less than building it on a vacant spot of land?

Now I imagine the easiest way to make these numbers work for you is to assume there is demolition (including foundations) involved in construction on land and adding on that cost as well as increasing acquisition costs, as developers still have to purchase the building and land, even if they plan to tear it down. Can you break this down for me?

[ArcaneAlchemy]

As a newer member of this board- but a long time reader, and further: as a "carpet-bagger" who has been educated and done work throughout my so-far short career in such places as the Rust Belt, Mid-Atlantic and South, I am consistently puzzled by the development process in Boston. I have tried to make sense of it on other threads, through discussions and the attendance of many, many public meetings for projects in Fenway, the South End, South Boston and more...

A few simple observations from mere personal experience would be best to point out, the first and most important of which is that this sort of fuss over growth does not occur at such a stringent and abrasive level in other major cities. I am reminded of NIMBY antics and anger of my childhood- when farmers in my community were selling there fields to be converted into 100 home developments... People were outraged and fought this tooth and claw- yet field after field went from corn or pumpkins or what-have-you, to homes. Interestingly though- while my neighbors cried for lost farm land in my youth, people in Boston seem content to weep for surface parking lots and highways dividing neighborhoods.

While I think of many projects in this city that are held up because of simple reactionary protest because of shadow-casting and such: I see many American values- especially those on property rights, being washed down the drain. Oh, the patriots of this nation such as Jefferson, Adams, Hancock and Madison must be spinning in their graves...

But- Columbus Center is a different creature, as the air right to the Turnpike truly to belong to the state/public...

Ned, while I respect your right to protest this project and while I acknowledge many of the points you have made over the months and years; I still must conclude that even if this project were 100% financed, built completely with green tech, and offered even more park space- letters would still be sent arguing the validity and merits of the development, using different points of contention.

I too- look at the gaping holes in our city and agree with the mayor that further oversight is needed from now on. I fear for the site of the old Filenes, and that it will sit vacant now. Additionally- one of my main points of contention and anger is the continued and astronomical gentrification of a city that regularly heralds itself as "inclusive", "progressive", and "diverse".

However, Columbus Center is without a doubt a marquee project. The citizens of Boston should be screaming to have the scar that is the Turnpike- removed from our urban landscape at any cost.

I commend your fiscal oversight, however I question whether it is based upon your interest for the tax paying public or the fact that you do not want to live next to such a "monstrosity".

At the end of the day- what I have noticed from my visits to so many meetings in this city, is that Boston is actually not very progressive at all. Fighting the height of every proposed skyscraper, obsessive neighborhood demands that minimize change, maintaining a so-called "quality of life", only supporting the most bland and passive of architectural designs... All of these things continually point to the fact that certain vocal residents of this city are not willing to accept the fact that they reside in a thriving urban center. Just as there is a difference between NIMBYs and "BEEARNs", there is a difference between proper planning oversight and semantics anchored in self-interest.

People should feel blessed to live in a city that has so many project proposals while other cities fight and scrape for just one in the horrible state of this market. Alas, I must say that I support my fellow board members in supporting this project nonetheless- while I don't necessarily trust large developers by any measure, the outcome of a project such as this is far more beneficial to the city than a large hole in the ground- even if it is a tower that casts horrible horrible shadows (oh, the humanity!) and houses the ultra wealthy (to my own dismay)...

The old patrician element of Boston that fights change to the level that we see on this board is a turn off for many developers- many of whom have told me this straight up when they say why they won't even commit to trying to do a project here in Boston... The majority of this city who support growth need to speak up, because reputations can kill.

This city deserve better projects and better architecture than the stumpy buildings that continue to be erected to appease the Neds of the world. Cities change and grow, if you don't like it- leave. There are plenty of beautiful brick rowhomes and such in Newburyport or even Washington, DC- where it is well known that nothing tall gets built. You would have enjoyed Philadelphia in the 60s-70's when nothing could be built above William Penn's hat on City Hall...

I whole-heartedly admit, I am not an expert on Columbus Center like Ned, who appears to have made a life of fighting development. But I have been around- and these type of shenanigans don't fly in New York or Philadelphia or Chicago. And I also know that it is outspoken patrician residents like Ned that will keep me from ever choosing to live in the "prize" neighborhoods of the South End and Back Bay. Need I remind you all- these places were swamps, filled-in in a landmark and earth-shattering way to accomodate and attract more people to an improved Boston. Ironically- it is people in these neighborhoods today who fight landmark, skyline changing or progressive developments who would bring in more people or improve the city.

Very ironic indeed..........

[pelhamhall]

It makes no sense to argue with that guy.

Building over a highway means a couple of things that people with no clue about real estate may not know:

1) The staging area - where is it? You can't stage on the highway. This becomes tricky and you have to lease/buy areas around the site to house your equipment. This is costly. Real estate in the vicinity of CC is not cheap.

2) Parking. Most skyscrapers dig the foundation and put the parking underground. You can't "dig" below the ramp. Therefore, you have two options. The first option is to build a secondary (and extremely costly) building to house the parking, which means building a second "deck" over a second parcel. The second parcel obviously needs to be purchased/leased. And this is not free. Your second option is to build the parking within the first 3-4 stories of the property. This kills the street life, and when the neighbors only allow you to build 30 stories, this means 10% of your building is now parking, not revenue-generating. You could ask to then build 33 stories, but the crazy people would bite your head off. It makes too much sense.

I could go on and on, but anybody with any clue whatsoever about real estate development already know all this. And I really don't think any of us are going to be able to convince that guy of much of anything.

You can always look at a spreadsheet and say "SF for SF, building on a highway and transit line is the same as building on that parking lot..." and you might be technically correct, but you would also be completely wrong.

His arguments are silly. He believes the management at Winn are laughing in some ivory tower, trying to steal our money. He believes this. It's so funny. They are just businessmen, trying to make a deal profitable. They are to be commended, not condemned for this. If they can't make it work, then they walk away. That's how business works. They're giving it their best shot, even in the face of shear lunacy. Good for them.

[Ron Newman]

Your third option is to radically reduce the number of parking spaces, maybe all the way down to 0.5 per unit, because the development is next to lots of public transportation of all kinds.

[pelhamhall]

That may be an idealistic view of the city in 20 years, but in 2008, you can't sell luxury condos without parking. Maybe cheap condos. Of course, with cheap condos, you can't afford to build the damn thing because the development won't cash flow.

Again, we're back to square one - it's incredibly challenging and expensive to build on a highway.

Duh.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . explain how building a 30 story building over and operating interstate highway can equal or be less than building it on a vacant spot of land?

Hello, Wocket. I first mentioned total development cost savings on this Forum last August, and a few times since.

Three separate, professional organizations estimated the tunnel-basement-deck costs...

• $31 million per Hanscomb cost estimators (4 April 2002)
• $12 million per Columbus Center’s new owners (22 February 2006)
• $37 million per Lincoln Property fair-market-value appraisers (6 March 2006).

For a total development cost comparison between land and air, the cost of both buildings themselves can be skipped, since equivalent buildings (first floors and upward) have equivalent costs. _ That leaves, as the big differential, a tunnel-basement-deck construction cost of only $1.7 – $5.3 million per acre at the 7-acre air rights site.

For a total development cost comparison, each site has to consider savings as well as costs. _ Demolition, excavation, contamination, and groundwater remediation all cost more on a land-based site than an air rights site, where such costs are negligible.

And acquisition costs more on land than in air. _ At urban Boston’s current rate for un-developed, un-contaminated, zoning-free land of $30 million per acre, these 7 acres anywhere else in town would cost $210 million. _ But MTA charged this developer only $12 million, generating a $198 million savings on property alone.

In total development costs, the savings to air rights developers — in acquisition, demolition, excavation, contamination, and groundwater remediation — leave an equivalent land-based project costing equal or more, thus destroying the myth of the developers’ never-proven “deck premium”.

That makes total development costs of air rights more lucrative than punitive, when comparing equivalent projects in the same neighborhood.

[kmp1284]

[QUOTE=Ned Flaherty;59523]As I confirmed in April, the proposed project has been proven not to block my views, so there’s no problem there.[QUOTE]

Prove it. I'd love to take your word for it but I can't. Take a picture, describe it in words, do a finger painting, tell us what direction on the compass your living room faces, whatever, just prove it.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . people in Boston seem content to weep for surface parking lots and highways dividing neighborhoods. . .The citizens of Boston should be screaming to have the scar that is the Turnpike- removed from our urban landscape at any cost.

No one is on record praising the parking lots or highways. _ Boston’s citizens have been working toward tunneling the transportation corridor below and developing the space above for years. _ I am one of them.

. . . Ned, . . . I commend your fiscal oversight, however I question whether it is based upon your interest for the tax paying public or the fact that you do not want to live next to such a "monstrosity".

I never said I don’t want to live near air rights development, or called it a “monstrosity”. _ Since moving next to the transportation corridor 18 years ago, I have always advocated for tunneling it over and developing it. _ That hasn’t changed.

But the current proposal is a monstrous betrayal of the public trust: _ no competitive bids, no financial disclosure, violations of the Master Plan, public parks converted to private gardens, and promises that the proposal would be built subsidy-free betrayed by the new owners threatening to walk if taxpayers don’t pay much or most of their costs and profits.

Cities change and grow, if you don't like it - leave.

Cites do change and grow, but not all change or all growth is beneficial. _ I chose to stay and work for the much better outcome that was always promised, and still is possible.

I whole-heartedly admit, I am not an expert on Columbus Center like Ned, who appears to have made a life of fighting development.

I don’t fight all development, or all air rights development, or all development at this particular site, but I remain critical of how the 13-year process has failed, when it needn’t have.

Your either-or proposition echoes the take-this-or-get-nothing mentality that was so often threatened by the developers. _ The public doesn’t have to choose between this proposal or nothing. _ What the overwhelming majority of citizens have said over many years is that all air rights should be developed: _ with competitive bids, from qualified developers, that comply with the Master Plan, with financial disclosure, and that a subsidy-free proposal needs to proceed without public money.

None of those 5 criteria were ever met. But the next developer at this site now has a good road map of what not to do.

[TedG]

Why has this become an "everyone gang up on Ned" board? Ned has said repeatedly that he does not oppose development of the turnpike air rights, that his views are not affected, and the only things he opposes about this project are:

1. No competitive bids for the project.

2. No financial disclosure.

3. Violation of the Turnpike Master Plan.

4. Project reviewed and approved as subsidy-free, and then the developers seeking public subsidies to pay for their costs and profits.

5. Project reviewed and approved with public parks, then sneakily changed to private gardens for the condo-owners.

6. Pollution from the cars and trains under the project concentrated tenfold (my figure, so don't jump all over me it it isn't exactly correct) and vented back into the community.

If you agree that these six things shouldn't happen, then lay off Ned, since we all agree on the these basic points. Personal attacks, name calling, and endless nit-picking over details do nothing to add value to this forum.

If you think these six things are okay, then trying to convince you otherwise is pointless, since you have other interests in mind than good development and good government.

Columbus Center, as was already mentioned, is not the last word in developing this site. Let's have it done right, by a competent developer, a feasible project that benefits everybody, and a REAL public process....one controlled by the public and not the developer, and not one purchased by giving the Governer a $10,000 "contribution."

[SeamusMcFly]

Short and sweet. If those were the prime motivations behind Mr. Flaherty's arguments, he would be all over every development in the city, past and present, and everywhere across the country. My goodness, shady dealings on a multi-million dollar development. When has that ever happened before.

Those 6 issues are very valid issues (and exist to some degree or another on almost every project.). But, on the outside (read impossible) chance that those 6 issues were taken care of to one Mr. Flaherty's satisfaction (yes welcome to la la land), would he not find somewhere a 7th reason or issue? Of course.

These valid issues are a means to the locals real end. That is, not disrupting there lives that they have come to believe are their inalienable rights. I paid for this great view, this amount of parking, this amount of traffic, this amount of pedestrians, etc. it better damn well stay that way. Let's forget that when my building was built and/or I moved in, it inconvienced the previous residents. "F" them and don't dare call me a hypocrite.

Yes, he's in favor of pike air rights developments. I believe that whole heartedly. Just not in an area where in negatively effects his standard of living.

There is no such thing as a perfect development, and like that guy once said "you can't please all the people all the time."

Now I don't really want to jump on the "let's bash Ned wagon", because he has provided a lot of interesting data and articles (yes too much since it began) and it's good to see how much swindling is going on places. But, c'mon, look back several pages at the lovely .gif someone uploaded. The horse has been beaten so much that Elmer's is knocking at the door with an offer to buy. (Yeah weak glue joke.)

Alright I gotta go home.... got a UFP producing train to catch, so I'll just end without any fanfare. The project is dead, the horse is dead, if they build this all those richies living near it will be dead from inhalation, when can this post be dead?

I guess it wasn't so short and sweet.

Oh. F the public process, and F the public. The residents are transient by city standards. The city was here before you, and the new buildings will be here long after you. Yes, that's a bit harsh. Let the public be involved, but can we get a public with some common sense, with a few better arguments than 20% of a concrete plaza will get shade on 7 days of the year.

[riffgo]

...But, Ted......False or even distorted premises can only lead to false conclusions.

[BarbaricManchurian]

If there is no company that makes UFP scrubbers, HOW THE HELL CAN COLUMBUS CENTER BUY AND INSTALL THEM? Your argument makes no sense, if they can't even buy them, how can they install them? And don't say "They can make them themselves", no they can't, they're a development company, not a custom pollution scrubbers manufacturer. Ned, if you don't move out, your lifespan will decrease by 20 years, and you will have a very painful death. So why won't you move out? It will only help you. I am content to have the UFP level stay the same with Columbus Center (don't repeat the same BS about "concentrated", it dissipates and the level stays the same), so suffering from the ultra high amount of UFPs coming from the Pike won't do you any good. In fact, it will only do you bad to stay in your current residence. Do you really want to die early? If you move out, you will not suffer from UFPs, and you will not have to worry about Columbus Center, since it won't be "concentrating" UFPs where you move to. Living anywhere near a road gives you pollution, it's a fact, so can you please move to a 10,000 acre ranch in Wyoming? Thanks, and hope you have a good, healthy life there.

[underground]

Thanks for mis-quoting me, Ned. Really drives home your point.

[underground]

Why has this become an "everyone gang up on Ned" board?

Looks like we found the other guy who only reads one thread.

[mpm617]

If you've ever stood on the Back Bay platform waiting for a commuter train you know the problem first hand. The air pollution at that station is criminal. There doesn't seem to have been any thought put into mitigating the deisel fuel pollution when the station was built. Yet the city, state and MBTA will allow a private developer to cover four more parcels of the pike without any planning for mitigating the effects of the many deisel trains that run through that tunnel every day. This is an MBTA (state) problem, they should be the ones to finally fix this. But the MBTA is broke (and stupid) so we should just be happy that the trains run at all.

[Ned Flaherty]

Several ArchBoston forum members are unusually interested in the views from the windows at my home. _ I’ve said more than once that my views wouldn’t be affected by this proposal, but KMP1284 and others can’t stop rubbernecking about it. _ So, with apologies to everyone else who isn’t interested, here are the keenly awaited data.

There are 6 fifth floor windows. _ Of those, 4 look south, from which the site of the proposed Columbus Center, being one block to the north, is undetectable. _ Two windows look east across the South End and the railroad tracks (which Columbus Center proposes to preserve as eternally exposed), to Bay Village and then to Chinatown. _ The sight lines are nowhere near Parcel 16, well south of all of Parcel 17, south of 90% of the structures on Parcel 18, and skip over the proposed rowhouse rooftops along Arlington Street.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Nedsviewaerial21-Aug-2008.jpg
Aerial view from Google Earth, 21 August 2008


• The towers proposed for Parcel 16 would not be detectable because of existing structure (orange polygon).
• The towers proposed for Parcel 17 would not be detectable because of existing structure (yellow rectangle), and existing 7-story trees in the South End (omitted from illustration).
• The rooftops of row homes two blocks away on Parcel 18 would be barely visible through existing 8-story trees in the South End (omitted from illustration).

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Nedsview3D21-August-2008.jpg
Adapted from “Building on the Pike” (Boston Globe, 19 March 2006)

[Tim Jackson]

I don't see why Ned's windows are such a big deal to some. I know that he opposes this development, one that many of the forum members (myself included) are anxious to see get going. However, I believe that he does indeed want to see this part of the Pike decked, but, since this current proposal doesn't meet what he views as the standard for a quality development, he is fighting it.

Now, do I agree with all of his positions? No, certainly not - I disagree with about half of his arguments. However, I find it a little irresponsible to claim that Ned 'is just another NIMBY' and is 100% against development in that area.

Just my two cents.

[JimboJones]

Well, we've exhausted this.

Topic: closed.

[ablarc]

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Nedsview3D21-August-2008.jpg
Gosh, this is a good project!

Just look at the way it fits in. If all Boston's new projects were held to this standard its future as a beauty spot would be assured.

[statler]

Gosh, this was a good project!

Fixed that for you.

[TedG]

Oh. F the public process, and F the public. The residents are transient by city standards. The city was here before you, and the new buildings will be here long after you. Yes, that's a bit harsh. Let the public be involved, but can we get a public with some common sense, with a few better arguments than 20% of a concrete plaza will get shade on 7 days of the year.

I am sick of hearing the argument that "the city was here before you" and therefore those who live in the city should either accept developments that add harm to their health, or move.

The suburbs were also "here before you" and "will be there after you," so this argument is irrelevent.

Citizens have a right to speak up against any development that will bring harm to public health, no matter where it is.

[pelhamhall]

If Hines wasn't extended on the South Station site, they would really be the perfect developer for this site.

First, their reputation is unimpeachable. Second, they have a long history of building mega-projects over tracks at complicated sites - just like this. Third, they built 500 Boylston and 222 Berkeley - getting actual skyscrapers built NEXT door to Copley Square in the face of the same hysterics from the same anti-progress crowd.

As architects, you can argue the cheesiness of post-modern design or you can ask regular folks on the street who all think the two buildings are really awesome, great additions to the city and helped establish the Back Bay as a business center beyond just the two random skyscrapers (Pru, Hancock).

Hines would do this right. Poor Winn, they made a backroom but totally legal deal with the Turnpike, thinking they would have a sure-fire home run on their hands. They never realized how complicated this would be, they've never done this before, and they held far too many public meetings and tried far too hard to appease too many constituents.

The "public benefit" of this project is repairing the Turnpike scar, and making this part of the city whole again. Period. They got caught up in all kinds of other extortions from various groups including affordable housing, ground-water regeneration, public parks, etc, etc. The public benefit is a repair of the turnpike hole. That's it. They should not have allowed further erosion of profits.

The next developer will be able to look the public in the eye and say "we're going to build this, but on our terms - not yours, your way failed" and everyone will go along to see it built. This should frighten the anti-progress people far more than the current proposal, which I imagine will be beefed up in today's climate, not toned down.

[Ron Newman]

Leaving aside the other concerns, ground-water is a very legitimate issue, since depleting groundwater threatens the value of all surrounding property. Anything built here should at the least not worsen that situation, and preferably improve it.

[ablarc]

Poor Winn, they made a backroom but totally legal deal with the Turnpike, thinking they would have a sure-fire home run on their hands. They never realized how complicated this would be, they've never done this before, and they held far too many public meetings and tried far too hard to appease too many constituents.
A miller and his son were driving their Donkey to a neighboring fair to sell him.

They had not gone far when they met with a troop of women collected round a well, talking and laughing. "Look there," cried one of them, "did you ever see such fellows, to be trudging along the road on foot when they might ride?' The old man hearing this, quickly made his son mount The Donkey, and continued to walk along merrily by his side.

Presently they came up to a group of old men in earnest debate. "There," said one of them, "it proves what I was a-saying. What respect is shown to old age in these days? Do you see that idle lad riding while his old father has to walk? Get down, you young scapegrace, and let the old man rest his weary limbs." Upon this the old man made his son dismount, and got up himself.

In this manner they had not proceeded far when they met a company of women and children: "Why, you lazy old fellow," cried several tongues at once, "how can you ride upon the beast, while that poor little lad there can hardly keep pace by the side of you?' The good-natured Miller immediately took up his son behind him.

They had now almost reached the town. "Pray, honest friend," said a citizen, "is that Donkey your own?' "Yes," replied the old man. "O, one would not have thought so," said the other, "by the way you load him. Why, you two fellows are better able to carry the poor beast than he you." "Anything to please you," said the old man; "we can but try." So, alighting with his son, they tied the legs of The Donkey together and with the help of a pole endeavored to carry him on their shoulders over a bridge near the entrance to the town.

This entertaining sight brought the people in crowds to laugh at it, till The Donkey, not liking the noise nor the strange handling that he was subject to, broke the cords that bound him and, tumbling off the pole, fell into the river.

Upon this, the old man, vexed and ashamed, made the best of his way home again, convinced that by endeavoring to please everybody he had pleased nobody, and lost his Donkey in the bargain.

[sidewalks]

Haha...ablarc called ned a donkey. Haha

[Beton Brut]

Columbus Center is the Donkey...

Some on this board may be so inclined to use a related term (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jackass) in reference to Ned.

[statler]

And now, the rest of the story:

Months and months were spent arguing over how the donkey died and who was responsible for the poor donkey's death. Meanwhile, the poor donkey lay in the river while everyone fought over who was to blame and where the fault lay. The dead donkey was eventually dragged up from the river and beaten and then beaten again and again.

And now you know where we get that old saying.

BTW ablarc, this is your second donkey reference in two days. :)

[ablarc]

^ LOL!!!

:D

[SeamusMcFly]

Aww jeez I'm sorry. It must be real horrible having to hear the same argument repeated over and over and over again. That must really suck.

But, I can't relate. Never have I had to hear the same argument repeated so many times that I wanted to bash my head into a wall.

I will try to be more accomodating in the fututre.

[statler]

Seamus, if you are referring to my dead horse comment, don't worry. It wasn't directed (directly) towards you.

It was aimed at this entire thread and everyone in it, including myself.

My point was that none us us are really accomplishing anything except aggravating each other.

Sorry if you took it personally, that wasn't my intention.

[ablarc]

Seamus, it’s really an…

Irish Wake

The Wake, the glorious send-off of departed loved ones, is a prominent feature of Irish funeral traditions ... in many country areas the practice of watching over the recently deceased from the time of death to burial is still followed and is an important part of the grieving process, which is why many Irish funerals, outside of the cities, are still preceded by a wake.

The origin of the wake probably dates back to the ancient Jewish custom of leaving the sepulchre, or burial chamber, of a recently departed relative unsealed for three days before finally closing it up, during which time family members would visit frequently in the hope of seeing signs of a return to life.

A more recent story, which is almost certainly a myth, is that the tradition of the wake in Ireland came about as a result of the frequent lead poisoning suffered by drinkers of stout from pewter tankards. A symptom of this malaise is a catatonic state resembling death, from which the sufferer may recover after a period of a few hours to a day or so, to the relief of those watching for signs of such an awakening.

Whatever the origins, there is no doubt that the ceremony of the wake has provided comfort to those who have nursed a loved one through a terminal illness or have had them snatched away by disaster without the chance to say goodbye. It is an opportunity to celebrate the departed’s life in the company of family and friends and to mark their departure from their home for the last time. A wake is a scene of both sadness and joy as the end of that life is marked but the life itself is remembered and treasured.


http://www.rip.ie/menu.asp?menu=329

[SouthEndCoog]

Howdy... I am new to this board and thread but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents into the ring.

I have been a South End resident since 1996. I am also a South End business owner. My daily routine takes me on the path where this project was to be located (I walk down Tremont to the gym near downtown crossing). I was very much looking forward to having the Bay Village/Chinatown side of the Pike reunited with the South End side. Having added businesses and park space would have been a HUGE plus especially considering what is currently there.

It really does seem as if the selfish interests of a few (the folks who would lose views or gain shadows...oh, the horror of a shadow in a city!) is holding up quality projects across the board. This WAS a quality project. Affordable housing, increased street vitality, added green space, added businesses, and a local hotel would have been wonderful additions to any space but were that much better since they were planned for in the void. What a waste it is to see it in its current state.

[Tim Jackson]

Welcome to the board, SouthEndCoog. Based on your views of this project, I am sure that you will fit right in with the crowd here!

[J6P]

I would not be surprised, to see more work on this location, I am led to believe. Enough, to ensure the permitting process does not need to be gone through again.

I have not read this whole thread. I will not lie. Perhaps somewhere it makes mention of the fact that the project was shut down, very shortly, after a local rep flipped on the Casino bill, and the speaker got his way.

There has been a lot of money expending on this project. Whether it is too much to walk away from or not I can't say. But I would be willing to say it is close.

[Dan]

Clearly, there are good projects, and bad projects. This was a good project. It really would be a shame to see this abandoned.

On the other hand, I would not mind seeing that overgrown wart of a building, 888 Boylston, abandoned and replaced with a permament plaza.

[Ron Newman]

I don't understand what this project would have to do with a casino bill. No casino was planned for this property, and none would ever be approved there.

[Tim Jackson]

I have not read this whole thread. I will not lie. Perhaps somewhere it makes mention of the fact that the project was shut down, very shortly, after a local rep flipped on the Casino bill, and the speaker got his way.

Columbus Center is a mixed-use residential/retail project. The only place being discussed as a possible location for a casino in Boston is in East Boston where Suffolk Downs is. I have to agree with Ron Newman in questioning what a pol flipping on a casino bill would have to do with this project.

[atlrvr]

It's called politics....there's a million analogies....simply said, if you need a project in your district to receive government subsidies, then sometimes you are at the mercy of other (more powerful) politicians who will expect you to support them on issues they deem important....

[SeamusMcFly]

Seamus, if you are referring to my dead horse comment, don't worry. It wasn't directed (directly) towards you.

It was aimed at this entire thread and everyone in it, including myself.

My point was that none us us are really accomplishing anything except aggravating each other.

Sorry if you took it personally, that wasn't my intention.

Nay nay. was directed more at.....

I am sick of hearing the argument that "the city was here before you"

Just pointing out a ridiculous statement. When this whole thread has been nothing but repeating the same boring old arguments.

But, since I rarely use the quote feature it went astray. If you read my previous post, I'm all about the dead horse analogy. Basically I got wrapped up in the whole sniping thing on here, which I am not about. So, no harm no foul.

Really, I just hate seeing this thread pop back up to the top. It gets your hopes up that there might be some progress on it, and then you find out it's just more of the same ol' bitching.

Now, I've gone and kept this thing alive again. So, I'm swearing off this thread until there is some actual news to speak of.

[J6P]

My understanding is that a rep did not want something in the area they represented and voted against Casino legislation and was rewarded.

[Tim Jackson]

Oh, I understand what you are saying now. That definitely makes more sense than what I thought you were getting at. Sorry about the confusion.

[stellarfun]

No comments sought apparently from our urban activists.


Bad air at Back Bay too costly to fix, T says

By Christine Pazzanese, Globe Correspondent | August 31, 2008

How do you find the Back Bay MBTA station? You could look at a map. Or, you could just take a deep breath and follow the acrid odor of diesel fumes.

GlobeWatch frequently passes through the station, and wanted to know why such a busy public transportation nexus always seems smoggy and smelling like a row of 18-wheelers is idling inside the station.

A study published last year by the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force found that the air quality on Platforms 1, 2, and 3 at the Back Bay station, as well as in stairwells and the waiting area leading to those platforms, was being sullied by exhaust from the diesel engines used by the MBTA commuter rail trains.

The task force visited the station in late 2006 and then again this past April. "The air was horrible," said Bruce Hill, a senior researcher. "The air was many, many times below air-quality standards." Soot levels measured during the studies were "off the charts high," in some cases greater than could be measured by the devices being used by researchers, he said.

The problem, Hill says, is that the roof of the station platforms traps diesel fumes precisely where riders are standing. When train doors open, the dirty air gets sucked into train cars and doesn't dissipate for "quite a while" later. The natural air flow causes fumes to be drawn up the stairwells and into the ticket/lobby area.

Hill said the air-ventilation system doesn't adequately filter out diesel fumes and soot particles, making the experience of regularly waiting on the station's commuter rail platforms potentially dangerous for those with respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis or those with other serious health problems like heart disease and lung cancer.

"People that are particularly sensitive to air pollution and allergies should avoid Back Bay station because the air is so extreme," he said.

A Globe reporter visiting last week found the air relatively clear, but noted the unmistakable odor of diesel permeated the commuter rail platforms, stairwells, and lobby area, even several minutes after a train had left the station.

The MBTA responds

The diesel fumes situation at Back Bay station is well known to T officials, said spokesman Joe Pesaturo.

After riders complained about the smog in a 1992 customer survey, the T hired a consultant to study the air problem and recommend improvements. The study, by Stone & Webster, confirmed that there were "elevated" levels of carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, particulates, and oxides of nitrogen, though it noted that there is no regulated standard to meet for indoor air quality in public spaces.

Pesaturo said the T took a number of recommended steps, such as making sure train engines are properly maintained, ensuring they stop at the proper location on platforms, adjusting the train schedule to minimize the number in the station at any one time, and enforcing a no-smoking policy.

The next step would be to replace the ventilation system, something the T would like to do but cannot. "The T does not have the financial resources to take on a project like this on our own," said Pesaturo.

As part of the nearby Columbus Center project, the developer had promised to make "substantial improvements (worth approximately $700,000) to the ventilation system at Back Bay Station," he said.

But the shaky financial picture of that $800 million project has delayed - if not derailed - the likelihood there will be a new system anytime soon.

"The Columbus Center project is on hold for now, and thus the new ventilation system promised by the developers is on hold too," said Mac Daniel, a Mass. Pike spokesman, via e-mail.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/31/bad_air_at_back_bay_too_costly_to_fix_t_says/

[BarbaricManchurian]

Well our good friend Ned obviously doesn't want air quality improvements for those poor, poor people going through Back Bay station every day! The pollution technically may be worse afterward, but it will seem better, and that is all that matters because pollution really isn't that harmful to you, even at extreme levels (I live in Tianjin, China at times, and the polluted days there may look bad, but is little worse to your health than blue sky days. Very few people die from pollution, if it happened we would be hearing stories all the time of massive die-offs in LA!).

[stellarfun]

There is technology that they use in railyards in CA where the diesel locomotive is parked under a hood which collects and scrubs the exhaust, including UFPs. Its stationary technology, i.e., the engine can't be moving.

If there is enough tunnel clearance, you might be able to adapt such technology for Back Bay. And if you are seeking to scrub a small volume of air, i.e., not the atmosphere writ large, not a multi-lane highway tunnel, in concept, you could significantly reduce the air pollution from the MBTA's diesels.

Now I wonder why there has been no crusading for that limited but practicable initiative to be done.

http://www.tri-mer.com/images/diesel-1.jpg
Source page:
http://www.tri-mer.com/ccs-case-study-6-diesel-exhaust-emissions.html#diesel

[JimboJones]

All I can think is, if I'm a T employee who works there on a regular basis, I smell lawsuit.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Building over a highway means a couple of things that people with no clue about real estate may not know . . .

Had you read the 1,331-page proposal and the 3,400-page lease that so many forum members never did read, you would already know the 3 major fallacies in your thinking. _ Here they are.

. . . The staging area . . . you have to lease/buy areas around the site to house your equipment. This is costly. Real estate in the vicinity of CC is not cheap.

It’s not true that lots of extra, expensive land had to be bought/leased around the site for staging areas. _ MTA gave a huge staging area in Weston to the developers — for free. _ Only one tiny piece of property had to be rented, for which the owner charged nil. _ All other staging areas are actually inside the boundaries of the air rights property. _ So, no, staging has none of the financial impact you assumed.

. . .Parking . . . The first option is to build a secondary (and extremely costly) building to house the parking, which means building a second "deck" over a second parcel. The second parcel obviously needs to be purchased/leased. And this is not free.

Yes, the developer had to lease parcel 18-G to build the 633-car garage that unlawfully replaced the required 2-acre public park. _ And although it wasn’t free, it nearly was, because MTA charged the developer only $305,000, a rent that is pennies on the dollar of its fair market value.

. . .Your second option is to build the parking within the first 3-4 stories of the property. This kills the street life, and . . . 10% of your building is now parking, not revenue-generating.

The parking is on the lower floors, street life is insulated from it, and the parking spots are the most profitable modules in the entire project, at $92,205 apiece. _ That was the developer’s price nearly 3 years ago. And the latest draft of the lease allows completion in 2025, so while the rent never increases, the sale prices and profits would.

Either you overlooked this information when you read the proposal and the leases, or else you just never read them at all.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Poor Winn, they made a backroom but totally legal deal . . .

No they didn’t make a legal deal.

It is not legal to write, under penalties and pains of perjury, that a project is public infrastructure, when in fact it is totally privately owned.

It is not legal to write, under penalties and pains of perjury, that financing is 100% secured, when in fact, no bank loan was ever issued, approved, or even applied for.

It is not legal to obtain subsidies by testifying that the tunnels are hermetically sealed, when no such seal was ever proposed, approved, or required.

It is not legal to write, under penalties and pains of perjury, that all open space is publicly owned and operated, when in fact it is privately owned, leaving the public with no control and no recourse.

It is not legal to tell bankers there are investors that don’t exist.

And it is not legal to tell investors there are bank loans that don’t exist.

And it is not legal to tell bankers or investors that there are public subsidies that don’t exist.

And it is not legal to claim financing that does not exist, or to conceal financing that does exist.

If you need to, just re-read the prospectus that Winn gave to California, re-read the Anglo Irish Bank’s 19-page list of requirements that had to be met before applying for a loan, and re-read all of the public subsidy applications, 2005-2007.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . It really does seem as if the selfish interests of a few (the folks who would lose views or gain shadows) is holding up quality projects across the board. This WAS a quality project. . . What a waste it is to see it in its current state.

The “view/shadow” crowd that many forum members imagine never existed. No public opposition to this project on that basis was ever filed.

What sank the entire venture was the developers themselves. . .

. . . who claimed investors, bank loans, and subsidies that they couldn’t produce;
. . . who claimed to be subsidy-free, but then asked taxpayers to pay their costs and profits;
. . . who proposed public open space that they later converted to private gardens;
. . . who said the project contained public infrastructure, when it contains none;
. . . who said for 13 years in a row that construction was imminent, yet nothing was ever built;
. . . who now are negotiating to re-start in 2010, and finish in 2025.

If they did what they proposed, or proposed what they could do, the outcome might have been closer to what you wish for. But they did not.

If any of the above 6 bullets are new to you, just re-read the proposals, leases, subsidy applications, and government corespondence.

[statler]

Zombie horses ride again?

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/04/columbus_center_may_get_a_lifeline/) - Sept 4, 2008
Columbus Center may get a lifeline
2 developers to scour project's finances

By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | September 4, 2008

Two prominent developers have been hired to rescue the foundering Columbus Center project in Boston, an $800 million complex over the Massachusetts Turnpike that would reunite the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods.

Related Properties of New York and the Beal Cos. of Boston, which are building the luxury Clarendon condominiums nearby, said they will conduct a six-week, top-to-bottom review of the Columbus Center's finances to determine whether the long-troubled project remains viable.

"We're attempting to come up with a solution which may save the project and substantially reduce the cost," said Bruce A. Beal, chairman of the Beal Cos. "We believe we're headed in the right direction and may be able to do that."

Columbus Center is one of the most ambitious developments in Boston - a massive hotel, residential, and retail complex that would be built on a deck that will straddle the turnpike and link two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South End borders Back Bay.

Both Beal and Related are major developers with considerable resources. But it remains unclear if the pair would invest in Columbus Center should they be able to find a way to move the construction forward. Columbus Center's owners, MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. and WinnCompanies, confirmed that they have hired Beal and Related as paid consultants to scour the project's finances.

In the 11 years since Winn first started planning the construction, Columbus's costs have soared to more than double its initial projected costs, from around $300 million to its most recent estimate of $800 million. Moreover, Winn and MacFarlane failed to obtain a package of $35 million in previously promised state subsidies after the Patrick administration lost confidence in the developers' ability to proceed. The project also encountered significant opposition from residents in the South End and the Back Bay over the size of the project and the use of public funds for what is mostly a luxury development.

Construction on the complex's foundation began earlier this year, but then stopped in March with the developers' latest financial troubles. Previously, Columbus Center was scheduled to be completed by 2011.

Columbus Center suffered a series of setbacks over the last year or so. Costs for construction materials, such as steel and copper, had soared on global demand. Meanwhile, a downturn in the US residential real estate market, especially for condominiums, coupled with turmoil in the nation's credit market, made it hard to borrow money for an ever-more expensive project. Late last year, one lender, Anglo Irish Bank, withdrew more than $500 million in promised funds. That left the developers scrambling to keep the project alive as neighborhood opponents declared it all but dead.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said last night that the involvement of the new consultants is a positive sign. "To have Winn and Beal come together at this stage is very important," Menino said. "This project needs a new infusion of equity."

Menino also said it would be better to build the project in phases, so the developers would not have to obtain the entire amount of funds to do all the work at once.

"The decking over the turnpike really drives the cost, so it has to be phased in," he said. "I would like to see this project saved. It fills a hole in the city of Boston and brings those two neighborhoods together."

Beal declined to detail his strategy for reviving the project, but he emphasized that he will not change any of its elements and will seek to build it under existing permits. He said the review will include an "A to Z" examination of all the project's costs and possible ways to save money.

"We're excited and encouraged by what we've seen so far," he said, declining to be more specific.

When Beal conceived of the Clarendon, a 33-story residential building now under construction, Columbus Center was expected to be a prominent neighbor that would enhance the value of his project and create a bridge over industrial property.

Instead, Beal's project is proceeding alone, while the Columbus Center site looks abandoned.

Beal's company has extensive experience with development across the region. The firm owns One Kendall Square, a 10-acre mixed-use development in Cambridge, and manages an extensive list of prominent buildings in and around Boston.

Related Properties is a national developer known for its success on dense urban projects similar to Columbus Center. It developed Time Warner Center in New York and projects in California, Colorado, Florida, and elsewhere.

"Related has a very strong financial reputation and has done a lot of very large projects," said George J. Fantini Jr., chairman of the mortgage banking firm Fantini & Gorga. "Along with Beal, their involvement adds some real value."

Columbus Center's developers, along with Beal and Related, are scheduled to meet with the city and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Sept. 15 to try to revive stalled talks over extending the lease for the Columbus Center property. The turnpike has leased the rights to build over the highway to Winn, so the authority must be consulted on any major changes to the project.

The developers have been seeking an 18-month extension to reconfigure their finances, but a deadline to reach an agreement passed last week. A spokesman for the Turnpike Authority said the authority is still committed to working with the developers.

"We hope to reach a consensus not only on the requested 18-month extension for the project, but more importantly on maintaining the [construction] site during that time period," spokesman Mac Daniel said.

Beal pledged to clean up the site and to remove fencing that has encroached on surrounding neighborhoods. Some of that work began last week, following multiple requests from neighbors, Menino, and turnpike officials.

A neighborhood activist vowed to continue to scrutinize the project, especially any effort by the developer to obtain public funds. The developers "are still assuming that Massachusetts public subsidies will pay both their costs and their profits, so full financial disclosure is more necessary than ever," said the activist, Ned Flaherty, who lives around the corner in the South End from the construction site.

Beal said it is premature to discuss any sources of funding for the project until the review is complete. "Until we know the final cost, there is no point in addressing the financing," he said, adding that the review should be finished by mid-October.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.

[stellarfun]

As hardly anything major is done in Boston without first checking with Da Mayuh, Menino probably raised or endorsed the idea of staging the project.

And IMO, Beal and Related are looking at the books to see whether they want to take an equity stake. CalPERS / MacFarlane and Related have done a deal before, another Columbus project, the Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in NYC, where MacFarlane acquired a 49 percent stake. So it may be that CalPERS brought in Related and Winn brought in a fellow Boston developer, Beal.

[pelhamhall]

This is what should theoretically happen:

Beal/Related finalize their review of the project's finances and they make their findings public: "Columbus Center is not a profitable development as designed, however, it can still be saved"

The buildings grow in size, the private park shrinks, some of the mitigation/extortion funds go away and they present the new and improved Columbus Center 2.0 and promise to resume construction in 45 days. Take it or leave it, Boston.

Related can do this, and Beal is a mayor's buddy, so this is very, very likely to happen.

If Columbus Center is profitable, it will be built. If Columbus Center is not profitable, it will not be built. All the other little story lines fall below that one.

[TedG]

Related can do this, and Beal is a mayor's buddy, so this is very, very likely to happen.



Isn't Arthur Winn also the "mayor's buddy?"

[KentXie]

It seems like one of the main and major reason why CC was unable to get off the ground was the inability to get loans caused by a loss of confidence from banks due to a downturn in the market. It has shaken both the consumer's confidence as well as the lender's confidence which has definitely doomed the project, not because of the so call "illegal" actions taken by CC. I guess the condition of the economy did play a major role, contrary to what Ned said.

[Lurker]

Beal ISN'T mumbles' buddy, however the economic influence one's company has in the city, forces the political forces within the government to be civil in matters during economic downturns. Developers in this city have two schools of thought. Either buy themselves into close company of the entrenched political class, or they play a great game of economic chess to get what they want. Compare Druker's work to the Beal's and you'll see the difference.

[Tim Jackson]

While I am excited to see Related and the Beal Cos. come on to try and save this project, I am still going to stand by earlier point that, unless these developers can find a way to build this without public subsidy (which is probably unlikely at this point), I am unfortunately going to have stand against this project. I am keeping my fingers crossed, though, as if they can solve that problem, then I am all on board for this project 100%.

Here is another article, relating more to the clean up of the construction site rather than the new developers coming on board:

Developers clean up Columbus Center construction

by Linda Rodriguez
managing editor
Wednesday Sep 3, 2008

Dormant site has been bad for business, locals say

After nearly five months of e-mails and calls from local residents and business owners to city officials, the developers of the beleaguered Columbus Center have agreed to clean up the interior of their now dormant construction sites.

Representatives of the city and the developers met with a local business owner on Aug. 29 at Parcel 16 - the rock-strewn site that was to become Frieda Garcia Park, but has for the last few months been the inactive staging site of the Columbus Center construction. As they watched, contractors hauled away rusted scrap metal and lumber from the site, enclosed in chain link fencing and torn green tarp. Since the developers abruptly halted construction on the project in March, citing a lack of financial backing, the site has been essentially vacant.

"It’s dangerous, it’s unsightly and it’s hurting business," said Anthony Gordon, pointing to the fact that construction site has taken over the sidewalk on nearly all sides.

Gordon says his primary concern is that at a minimum, the developers should move the construction back to the original property lines and off the city sidewalks. Gordon owns and lives in a building that overlooks the dormant site; he rents the first floor of his building to restaurants 33 and Stix, which he says have both suffered since the site was abandoned and the project left to founder.

"This is not very nice to look at," he said, adding that Bertucci’s restaurant, which bordered the site, recently chose not renew its lease and the space remains vacant. "It’s tough for [the restaurants] and I want to make sure they don’t go out of business."

Gordon, who also served on the Columbus Center Citizen’s Advisory Committee when the project was first announced and the Construction Committee after, says he’s been with the project throughout its process and had expected a certain amount of discomfort during construction. His building, a red-brick former stables built in the late 19th century, is sandwiched between the corpse of the Columbus Center and the bustling Clarendon project. That project has been very responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood; the Columbus Center had been somewhat attentive, he said, before the project abruptly stopped.

"Right now, I’m just trying to get some normalcy while they try to revive the project," he said, adding that cleaning the interior of the site "should have been done a long time ago."

While city representatives said they could not speak to Gordon’s specific concern regarding the sidewalks and property lines, they did say that the Aug. 29 clean-up session was prompted by neighborhood concern.

"The community brought these concerns to me in e-mail and phone calls," said Tabitha Bennett, the Mayor Thomas Menino’s liaison to the South End and Bay Village. Bennett, along with a representative of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), sent an e-mail to members of the Bay Village and Ellis South End neighborhood associations and residents of the affected streets, as well as to members of the Columbus Center Construction Committee, indicating that city would be holding the developers accountable to maintain the sites. The e-mail outlined measures such as the twice weekly monitoring of rat traps, trash removal inside the site, the continued clean-up efforts of Project Place on the outside perimeter of the project, and the replacement of torn and graffitied green fencing.

"The main role of the city has been sort of as mediator between the residents and the developers," said Nick Martin of the Mayor’s Press Office, also present for the Aug. 29 cleaning. "The mayor has made it clear that whatever the state the project is in, it still needs to remain safe and clean for the residents in this area."

Martin was unable to comment on the future of the project or what the clean-up efforts may indicate about its future. Likewise, the developers of the project, Winn Development and its California-based partners, issued a statement through a spokesperson that was vague on the project’s future: "The neighbors in the South End and Back Bay deserve to have a site that is maintained. In response to neighborhood concerns, and the Mayor’s continued desire to have a clear site, we initiated a clean-up operation last week, which will continue over the next several weeks. We feel this is an important interim step as we continue to make every effort to move forward on this project."

Though what the push to clean up the site augurs for the future of the project remains unclear, community members can expect answers soon: Mac Daniel, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the agency that holds the lease with the Columbus Center developers, confirmed that the authority will be meeting with the developers of the project and with representatives of the city and the BRA on Sept. 25. South End News initially learned of the meeting from community members planning on attending, however, Daniel was unable to confirm whether the local residents would also be invited to the meeting. This would be the first meeting to include all interested parties at one time since the developers requested an 18-month moratorium on construction in April.

"I don’t know what is going to be discussed at this meeting, but certainly from the Turnpike’s perspective, we want to finally shore up the request for the 18-month extension," he said. "But more importantly, ensure that the most recent clean up around the site as well as future clean ups will continue if the extension is granted."

Daniel said that he was unsure what would be worked out at the meeting, but said, "We would like to see the site brought back to its pre-construction state if again, if the 18-month extension is granted."

Linda Rodriguez can be reached at lrodriguez@southendnews.com

LINK (http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=features&sc3=&id=79860)

[Padre Mike]

Looking at the design provided by the Globe, I was struck by how dated this project now looks. I hope if it ever gets built, it will go back to the architectural drawing board.

[ablarc]

^ Insufficiently avant-garde, huh? How should it look? Is there a fresh new style I've overlooked?

[Ron Newman]

I don't understand that comment either. What would make the project good in 2006 but bad in 2009?

[Tim Jackson]

Padre Mike, I think that its just because we have looked at it and debated it so many times, we are all just used to seeing it, making it seem somewhat stale. In reality, if this design for the Columbus Center was unveiled today, we would all probably have the same reactions as when we did back when this proposal was originally unveiled. I think what you mistake as an old and stale design is really the result of seeing the same thing over and over again, coupled with the realization that this thing is not moving forward (as of now).

[statler]

Oh, don't worry Padre.

He said the review will include an "A to Z" examination of all the project's costs and possible ways to save money.

Once they are done with the 'value engineering' it won't look anything like the rendering.

[pelhamhall]

I think it's fair to say that once this thing gets built, it will not be exactly as currently prescribed. I have a feeling that the local activists will be crying out for the current proposal, when they see what Beal/Related propose to actual turn a profit. The pendulum has swung into the developer's favor now. They are in the driver's seat.

It's going to get interesting. I can't wait for them to come back and present their recommendations - fasten your seat belts!

[JimboJones]

I like the design of the hotel.

It's an encouraging development, the arrival of Related and Beal on the scene.

Are those jackhammers I hear?

[Ron Newman]

What is "value engineering" ? I've never heard this term before.

[ablarc]

Value engineering means changing a design so it costs less to build.

[SeamusMcFly]

I read that as.... what is "sarcasm"? I've never heard of that before. Microsoft should start developing that into their next upgrades. A way to catch sarcasm through the typed word.

Otherwise.... yeah VE, means build for cheaper. Though I can tell you, from the engineers point of view. The last thing VE'd out, is the architecturally pretty stuff. First things to go are the blood and guts of the building, not the pretty skin.

[statler]

^^ Really? How so?

Cheaper HVAC units and such? What else can an engineer skimp on that won't compromise the structural integrity of the building?

And no, that's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious.

[atlrvr]

Flooring, facades, windows, lighting, condo finishes, office finishes, etc.

The term engineering in value engineering isn't necessarily limited to what saving a structural engineer can find.

There are other things....post-tension as opposed to pre-tension. Driven piles (for the site over land) as opposed to cast piles. These the engineers do have control over. For example, driven is usually cheaper than cast, but Ned is going to have a nasty headache.

[Ned Flaherty]

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/DeveloperClean-up.jpg

[Ned Flaherty]

It seems like one of the main and major reason why CC was unable to get off the ground was the inability to get loans caused by a loss of confidence from banks due to a downturn in the market. . . I guess the condition of the economy did play a major role, contrary to what Ned said.

No, the current economy played no major role.

That's because during good times and bad, Columbus Center’s failures (1996-2008) were caused by — among many other things — the fact that no commercial bank ever loaned even one dollar of the $840 million now needed to finish construction.

So, yes, the project is un-finance-able, and yes, it has always been un-finance-able. _ The recent bank tightening merely reinforced that fact. _ Even if the 2008 tightening had not happened, the un-finance-ability demonstrated from 1996-2007 remains. _ So, no, the current economy did not put the project where it is today, because in all economic climates, it has always remained un-finance-able.

As soon as CalPERS-CUIP-MacFarlane finally admitted to themselves that their project can not be financed, they cut off current funding and refused additional funding last winter.

They did the same thing to another of their projects, LandSource, forcing it to file for bankruptcy on 8 June. _ Although that move cost its owners $1 billion, they understand the principle of not throwing good money after bad.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . If Columbus Center is profitable, it will be built. If Columbus Center is not profitable, it will not be built. All the other little story lines fall below that one.

That’s not so. _ Many large, profitable projects never get built. _ The best example is the 1.4-million-s.f., 4.7-acre, Boylston Square air rights proposal, proposed in 1998, and dead for nearly a decade. _ It was always profitable, but it was never built, because plenty of other factors weighed in.

CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC’s latest public subsidy applications show a completed value of $1,146,096,618, less $800,000,000 cost, for a profit of $346,096,618 (and that’s with no public subsidies at all), so raw profit is not the problem. _ The underlying problem has always been that no commercial banker ever loaned any of the $840 million needed to finish. _ That has not changed.

Profit is always the primary motivator of developers, and also of the politicians that they own. _ But ultimately, it is never the only consideration.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . I was struck by how dated this project now looks. . .

The outdated feeling arises from the fact that something first proposed 13 years ago now is not slated to be finished construction for 17 more years, per the latest draft of the amended lease.

. . . What would make the project good in 2006 but bad in 2009?

The spread isn’t 2006-to-2009; it’s 1996-to-2025. _ And apparently discontented with that time line, the developers already are begging for an even longer phase-in. _ If that 1996-to-2025 spread stretches any further — voilá! — on opening day it’ll already be nostalgic.

. . . if this design . . . was unveiled today, we would all probably have the same reactions as when we did back when this proposal was originally unveiled. . .

No, reactions would not be the same, because now the truth is out. _ The proposals approved from 1996 to 2004 were all subsidy-free, but in every re-proposal from 2005 onward, the developers wanted costs and profits subsidized by taxpayers. _ Profiteers love corporate welfare in which they’re the beneficiaries, but no one else has any tolerance for it.

[Tim Jackson]

When I was saying we would have the same reactions, I was discussing from strictly a design standpoint, considering that was what Padre Mike was talking about. I wasn't going into whether or not the master plan was broken or not, whether there was public subsidy or not, etc.

Padre Mike looked at the design and thought that it looked stale. I agree - the current design of the project has been on the table for awhile and it feels old and stale, mainly because nothing significant has happened regarding the project (and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon). If the developers came out with this new design today, would we all think that it was stale? No, because it would be a fresh new one.

That's all I was getting at. The design of the project is still very good (in my opinion), its just that the lack of any real progress makes it seem stale and outdated.

[SeamusMcFly]

^^ Really? How so?

Cheaper HVAC units and such? What else can an engineer skimp on that won't compromise the structural integrity of the building?

And no, that's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious.

It is amazing what will be asked from time to time to save money on a project. What is funny sometimes is when a project is 20 million over budget, and the first thing they do is ask the MEP engineers how to save when the entire MEP budget is less than 20 mil. What I do understand, from an architectural standpoint and from the owner/developer, is that they own a product based on the original design. Therefore, as much of the architectural pretty stuff must be kept at almost any cost.

The problem is just what you questioned. First, cheaper HVAC, but not so much in unit but in entire design. Going from central chilled water & boiler water, to heat pump, fan box, or roof top unit systems. Electrical going from copper feeders to aluminum, or directly burying conduit in lieu of encasing it. Central domestic hot water versus cheaper less reliable electric heaters throughout. The list goes on and on. Typically the savings is found in materials and in eliminating redundancy. All aimed at short term savings at the expense of long term performance/reliability.

It's a business, and we all know it, but the engineering community feels similiarly to the architectural in that, we feel like we put the best design on paper and people with suits and wallets try to cut it down. Your design is your baby, and you are proud of it, and want to protect it. We also understand almost all projects go through a VE phase, so we will build in certain things that we can live without, while still maintaining the integrity of the design.

I will give you one of my favorite VE items, which has come up on 2 of my more high end and visible projects. Both were brand new "state of the art" sports facilities. One a professional hockey arena, and the other a Div. I college football stadium. On both of these projects it was asked (and fairly well pushed for) whether we could utilize trough style urinals in all the public mens rooms. We saw this as 50+ year old design, and potentially a disgrace to the project. Luckily neither ended up with this, as in one case the code wouldn't allow it, and in the other cooler (smarter) heads prevailed. But, we defended our design in each case, and presented the pros and cons.

The biggest area to VE (short of finish) however is the HVAC systems.

[pelhamhall]

Don't believe the "consulting" hype - Related/Beal are in it to win it.

Ned - you are sadly going to have to drop all your propaganda against "California" and Winn once they exit stage left.

You better start researching the Related Companies and Beal - you're going to have brand new, fresh mud to hurl about! Isn't that exciting? The world is dying to hear what awful things these companies are up to!!! Start slinging! You should begin preparing your next South End News diatribe.

[Ned Flaherty]

Don't believe the "consulting" hype - Related/Beal are in it to win it.

Most failed projects go through a scavenging phase, during which vultures swarm to feed off the rotting corpse, while the owners try to recover a little by salvaging as scrap whatever they have left at pennies-on-the-dollar rates: _ property, permits, designs, property, etc.

And this failure is no different.

But the Beals of Boston and the Beals of New York have bought none of this project. _ They have invested nothing into it. _ The current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) merely hired the Beals on a single-fee-for-single-service consulting basis.

The purpose is for California to determine: _ (1) how honest and competent Winn’s prospectus was back in 2005; (2) what actually happened 2006-2008; and (3) what the new prognosis is 2010-2025. _ The current owners can’t sue the former owners without this data.

Ned - you are sadly going to have to drop all your propaganda against "California" and Winn once they exit stage left.

There are no new owners, only former owners (Winn) and current owners (California). _ The Beals haven’t bought the project, or offered to buy it, and California hasn’t sold the project, offered to sell it, fired Winn, or even let them just walk away. _ On the contrary, California is holding Winn’s feet to the fire that Winn created, and for good reason. _ California owns everything, Winn remains under contract to California, and the Beals are under contract to CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC.

But regardless of what future role they may play, one thing about the Beal/Related team is already historical fact: _ they, just like CalPERS-CUIP-MURC and Winn, also make their living through public subsidies that consume taxpayer dollars paying their private costs and profits. _ When they tell the Globe they’ll “cut costs,” they mean they’ll cut owners’ costs, by shifting those costs to taxpayers more than by truly eliminating them.

The Beals’ re-proposal should itemize how much money they want the public to pay into their 100% privately owned project — and when — and why.

To be honest, their re-proposal needs to itemize the 13 types of subsidy sought by the former and current owners:

• property discounts;
• property tax breaks;
• tax-free bond loans;
• low-interest construction loans;
• luxury housing grants;
• state income tax breaks;
• utility grants;
• work tax credits;
• equipment write-offs;
• wage tax credits;
• energy grants;
• community development tax credits; and
• economic stimulus grants.

In addition to the above 13 subsidies, the consultants should add the new subsidies that they conclude are needed to “save” this proposal.

[pelhamhall]

Well, time will prove either your above post correct, or my post above that correct. For now, I will write nothing more.

[pelhamhall]

As an aside, if you want to study and learn the PR industry, you don't examine the contents of an article like that (on Beal's "consulting" task), you ask the question "why was this news even released? why is this being written about?" followed of course by "so what's the real story?" - that's where the fun part of public relations comes into play.

Also, Beal/Related aren't known as being consultants to developers, are they? You might say this is very unusual for them. Especially considering their huge competing property next door at the Clarendon. Why would the developer allow CC's books to be opened and examined by their closest, largest competitor? But Beal is just "consulting", right? He'll make his recommendations on how to make CC profitable, take a consulting fee (hey, it might even be thousands of dollars), and then go back to work on his property. Next door.

[Tim Jackson]

Columbus Center developers would open their books to Beal because they know that, whether or not Beal ends up being a part of the team that develops those air rights parcels, he has a fair amount to lose if those parcels remain a gaping chasm.

Lets say Beal doesn't become a primary developer. He would still want to see the Columbus Center built because it would raise the value of The Clarendon. As a potential condo buyer or a party interested in purchasing the building itself (way down the line), would you rather it be next to a highway, or a vibrant new mixed-use development? The latter certainly appeals to many more people, and the value would go up.

Not that I am saying that Beal would be hurting if CC ultimately failed, just pointing out that a successful Columbus Center (or another future project on those air rights) would help out his Clarendon property, regardless of his involvement.

[atlrvr]

^ Ned, can you please define "Luxury Housing Grant" for me? I had never heard of it before, so I asked Google, and apparantly neither has anyone else.

Also, what is the difference between a "work tax credit" and a "wage tax credit".

Finally, what specifically at C.C. qualifies as a unique "equipment write-off" that falls outside standard business deductions. Assuming you are self employed, and you are smart, then I assume you depreciate your home computer? Does this qualify you as receiving a public subsidy? There is no right or wrong answer, I just want to know to what extent you are casting the "subsidy" net, as I don't have time to read all 17,653,342,158 pages of public documents.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Beal/Related aren't known as being consultants to developers, are they? You might say this is very unusual for them.

Yes, they do consult to developers. _ Harvard University needed a secret consultant to expand across the river into Boston, and Beal did that work for them — confidentially — until the damage was done and no one could do anything about it. _ Such consulting isn’t unusual, just unpublicized.

. . . Why would the developer allow CC's books to be opened and examined by their closest, largest competitor?

Because “the developer” isn’t one, single-minded entity, a concept that people here and elsewhere still have trouble grasping. _ “The developer” now consists of 5 partners with separate agendas.

Partner 1 • CalPERS’s goal is rapid, safe, high-profit return on its capital since 2005, but it hasn’t gotten any profit, or even any progress.

Partner 2 • CUIP’s goal is to keep CalPERS’ investment off the state books and out of the public eye, but this investment in another government’s publicly subsidized project made that difficult.

Partner 3 • MURC’s role is to earn a percentage for itself by investing and managing CalPERS’ money and obtaining the results promised in Winn’s prospectus, but, like CalPERS, it also has seen no profit or progress.

Partner 4 • Winn’s role is to make the day-to-day decisions to keep the promises Winn made to the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC organization in 2005, so that Winn can (a) collect its sub-contractor fee at the end of the project and (b) not get sued by the controlling partners. _ But Winn has made no progress since 2005 (e.g., the 7 acres of railway/roadway tunnels required to finish by November 2008 never even started).

Partner 5 • Beal/Related’s role is to finish a single-fee-for-single-service consulting contract evaluating the project’s financial history. _ They collect the same handsome fee, regardless of whether the prognosis is good, poor, or middling.

Partners 1, 2, and 3 (the ones in total control) engaged partner 5 (the consultant) to evaluate partner 4 (just a sub-contractor to Partners 1, 2, and 3).

If Partner 5 can show the project as worthless today, then get Partners 1, 2, and 3 to write it off as a loss, then buy it from them for pennies on the dollar, and then make a killing for themselves, they will do just that. _ But because the consultants have a vested interest in devaluing the project, their clients should view any such recommendations with extreme skepticism.

As I explained here on 8 July, the Beal/Related team are not the first consultants hired by CalPERS-CUIP-MURC in recent months to find out what went wrong. _ Last winter, CalPERS hired global financial services firm Morgan Stanley of New York to perform a similar exercise.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . I don't have time to read all 17,653,342,158 pages of public documents . . .

Anyone who hasn’t read all the public records will never understand what this unique proposal really is. _ If you want to understand, the public records are the place to start. _ But they total 15 thousand pages, not 17 million. _ Over 99% of the pages you assumed you’d have to read don’t even exist, so if you keep making calculation errors of that magnitude, it’s doubtful you’ll ever grasp the rest of it.

what is the difference between a "work tax credit" and a "wage tax credit"? . . . what specifically at C.C. qualifies as a unique "equipment write-off" that falls outside standard business deductions?

Atlrvr, you wrote here on 15 April that you’re an expert in real estate finance, “employed by an equity investor that takes limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, with a controlling ownership stake in every deal.” _ But now you admit ignorance of the federal work tax credits, wage tax credits, and equipment purchase deductions that are often claimed by developers in federally defined poverty districts. _ Someone in the role you claim would know better.

Since you don’t have the time to read the public records, you certainly don’t have the time to listen to me recite them. _ So here’s a summary answer: _ these federal tax credits and tax deductions became available after the developers paid “campaign donations” to state Senator Wilkerson for re-drawing Boston’s HUD-sponsored poverty boundary to include the 7-acre site of Columbus Center (marketed to investors and bankers as “the city’s answer to Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue”).

Details are found in the federal laws and regulations governing the HUD Empowerment Zone program, in Columbus Center’s request to re-draw the poverty boundary, and many related documents. _ Be sure to ask Senator Wilkerson for a copy of the Columbus Center Empowerment Zone jobs contract that she negotiated during 2005-2006-2007 while receiving “campaign donations” from the developers. _ Note: since it was signed one year ago, she has refused to show it to media, government, elected officials, or the public.

How does a Rodeo-Drive-class luxury skyscraper complex also claim to be the very essence of poverty? _ Taxpayers and government agencies asked the same question.

Ned, can you please define "Luxury Housing Grant" for me? I had never heard of it before, so I asked Google, and apparantly neither has anyone else.

You won’t get an answer by “asking Google” because the concept of a “luxury housing grant” is new, and unique to the perverse logic of the Columbus Center proposal. _ For the many who are still unfamiliar with the 15,000 pages of that proposal — as you say you are — here’s the answer.

No one’s ever heard of a “luxury housing grant” because there’s no such thing; government agencies don’t knowingly give away taxpayer dollars to pay for building luxury housing.

But California applied for a public infrastructure grant that, if disbursed, would have been used instead to build private luxury housing. _ California’s application was disapproved twice: _ first in fall 2007, because taxpayer dollars reserved for public infrastructure can’t be used to build private luxury housing; and again in spring 2008, because the project never borrowed the bank loans it claimed to have borrowed. _ Massachusetts told California they can’t reapply until both these obstacles are overcome.

The project remains a “luxury housing” venture (81% of the square feet are residential), and the developers insist the Governor once promised them the outright gift of a public “grant” to build it. _ So “luxury housing grant” remains on the list of subsidies that the developers insist they’re going to grab.

[stellarfun]

Ned, Beal's role in acquiring land in Allston on behalf of Harvard was more than just acting as a "consultant". Beal, in effect, acted as a straw for Harvard. Beal acted similarly on behalf of the Boston Public Library, which is how it acquired the land for the addition to the Central Library.

[pelhamhall]

- The developers hired Morgan Stanley to do a top-down consulting project.

- Months later they have hired Beal/Related to do the same. (the must be flush with cash to have so much to throw around on multiple "consulting" projects)

- The New York-based Related Companies have decided to partner with Beal to do a consulting project even though it is downright silly to think that a company the size of the Related Companies would want to share in a little one-fee consulting project in Boston.

- Columbus Center's PR firm felt this was all worthy of a press release and media attention.

Now, use some common sense:

Unless something is revealed during this due diligence period.. oh, sorry, I mean the "consulting period", then Beal/Related are going to take over this project and build Columbus Center. Unlike the traveling Winn Company circus, Beal/Related are a team that can, and will, get this done - they have the portfolio of success, the financial backing, and the track record at the Clarendon.

[atlrvr]

Anyone who hasn’t read all the public records will never understand what this unique proposal really is. _ If you want to understand, the public records are the place to start. _ But they total 15 thousand pages, not 17 million. _ Over 99% of the pages you assumed you’d have to read don’t even exist, so if you keep making calculation errors of that magnitude, it’s doubtful you’ll ever grasp the rest of it.



Atlrvr, you wrote here on 15 April that you’re an expert in real estate finance, “employed by an equity investor that takes limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, with a controlling ownership stake in every deal.” _ But now you admit ignorance of the federal work tax credits, wage tax credits, and equipment purchase deductions that are often claimed by developers in federally defined poverty districts. _ Someone in the role you claim would know better.

Since you don’t have the time to read the public records, you certainly don’t have the time to listen to me recite them. _ So here’s a summary answer: _ these federal tax credits and tax deductions became available after the developers paid “campaign donations” to state Senator Wilkerson for re-drawing Boston’s HUD-sponsored poverty boundary to include the 7-acre site of Columbus Center (marketed to investors and bankers as “the city’s answer to Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue”).

Details are found in the federal laws and regulations governing the HUD Empowerment Zone program, in Columbus Center’s request to re-draw the poverty boundary, and many related documents. _ Be sure to ask Senator Wilkerson for a copy of the Columbus Center Empowerment Zone jobs contract that she negotiated during 2005-2006-2007 while receiving “campaign donations” from the developers. _ Note: since it was signed one year ago, she has refused to show it to media, government, elected officials, or the public.

How does a Rodeo-Drive-class luxury skyscraper complex also claim to be the very essence of poverty? _ Taxpayers and government agencies asked the same question.



You won’t get an answer by “asking Google” because the concept of a “luxury housing grant” is new, and unique to the perverse logic of the Columbus Center proposal. _ For the many who are still unfamiliar with the 15,000 pages of that proposal — as you say you are — here’s the answer.

No one’s ever heard of a “luxury housing grant” because there’s no such thing; government agencies don’t knowingly give away taxpayer dollars to pay for building luxury housing.

But California applied for a public infrastructure grant that, if disbursed, would have been used instead to build private luxury housing. _ California’s application was disapproved twice: _ first in fall 2007, because taxpayer dollars reserved for public infrastructure can’t be used to build private luxury housing; and again in spring 2008, because the project never borrowed the bank loans it claimed to have borrowed. _ Massachusetts told California they can’t reapply until both these obstacles are overcome.

The project remains a “luxury housing” venture (81% of the square feet are residential), and the developers insist the Governor once promised them the outright gift of a public “grant” to build it. _ So “luxury housing grant” remains on the list of subsidies that the developers insist they’re going to grab.

Are you saying you can't distinguish between a work tax credit and a wage tax credit, or that you just don't want to share? Saying the answer is in the public records is a pretty easy answer don't you think? Since I asked, and you gave me your generic answer, I tracked down the answer myself, and now understand that neither would be direct subsidies to the developers, rather to the operators of the retail and hotel components.

Also, this ominious sounding business purchase deduction is available to every business in the country. I assume you are upset because now they are available for bonus depreciation?

It sounds as though you have a lot of angst towards IRS tax law. While it certainly is tedious, and often illogical, I'm pretty certain that following tax law isn't criminal. Perhaps a bigger crusade should be towards corporate tax reform

Finally....you just admitted that you made up the "Luxury Housing Grant", and there is no such thing. It's because of your continuous intentional deception on a variety of points, that I find it ironic you question the developer's integrity.

No one in the city other than MAYBE the developer has read as many public records as you on this project, but you wave that fact around like a "get out of jail free" card, anytime someone questions your assertions. You may portray yourself as the local expert on the project, but when you intenionally and repeatedly make misleading statements, one can only assume its for your personal agenda, and not because you are working toward a greater public good.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . between a work tax credit and a wage tax credit . . . neither would be direct subsidies to the developers, rather to the operators of the retail and hotel components.

As always, you haven’t read the public records. _ Every subsidy is either consumed by the developers or else sold to someone else. _ Thus, every subsidy increases the developers’ sale prices and reduces their costs. _ Although Congress never intended such abuse, all Columbus Center subsidies — even the ones designed for future tenants — benefit the developers directly, because they adjust for them in their sale prices.

. . . this ominous sounding business purchase deduction is available to every business in the country.

Firstly, you’ve confused your subsidies. _ The Columbus Center subsidy is not the “business purchase deduction” you wrote about. _ The Columbus Center subsidy is an Equipment Purchase Deduction, which is different.

Secondly, it is available only to qualified businesses inside an impoverished neighborhood declared under HUD regulations as a poverty district called an “Empowerment Zone”. _ You wrote that it is available to “every business in the country” but that’s not the case.

. . . you made up the "Luxury Housing Grant", and there is no such thing.

No. _ I didn’t make it up, California did. _ Just because I uncovered someone else’s preposterous attempt to use public infrastructure grants to build luxury private housing doesn’t mean I made anything up. _ California made it up, I discovered and reported it, taxpayers and legislators were outraged, and the state disapproved it.

. . . when you . . . make misleading statements. . .

You misled yourself by not reading what you needed to read, not knowing what you needed to know, and making assumptions about all the rest.

. . . one can only assume its for your personal agenda, and not because you are working toward a greater public good.

Again, you’re running only on assumptions. _ You have no knowledge of my personal agenda — whatever it might be — and thus have no basis for saying what it is, or whether it works toward greater public good, or anything else about it, for that matter. _ If you truly believe that every personal agenda is always selfish, perhaps all your experiences are only with ungenerous agendas to begin with.

For many years I have advocated for total development of all city air rights, by qualified developers, with competitive bids, using full financial disclosure, that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan, and that reduce public health risks instead of adding new ones. _ That’s never changed, and it benefits everyone. _ That may or may not be a lot of people’s personal agendas, as well, but no one can intelligently argue that those principles don’t serve a greater good.

[statler]

http://images.neopets.com/template_images/rooisland_merrygoround.gif

[Ned Flaherty]

State House News Service, September 8, 2008 5:16:59 PM EDT

State Capitol Briefs:

COLUMBUS CENTER PROJECT HIRES NEW PR FIRM

As a pair of development consultants attempts to save the $800 million project aimed at linking Boston’s Back Bay and South End neighborhoods, the project has picked up a new public relations shop. _ McDermott Ventures, a public affairs and strategic communications firm, replaces Regan Communications and its chief executive officer, Alan Eisner, on the troubled Columbus Center project.

Regan will still work for Winn/Cassin Development, one of the owners of the project, according to Stephen Dunleavy, general manager for Regan Communications, but won’t handle the project. _ McDermott Ventures represents The Beal Companies and The Related Companies, the two developers trying to rescue the project.

“When Related Companies and Beal were retained as development consultants for the Columbus Center project, the development team asked that all communications be coordinated through one party,” said Brooke Botello, a senior account executive at the firm. _ “McDermott Ventures has represented the Beal/Related team for the past five years and will handle all external communications during the analysis.”

Other McDermott clients include The New England Aquarium, The Boston Globe, and Filene’s Basement. _ McDermott Ventures also features on its website a twice-weekly local development and transportation column by former Globe reporter Thomas Palmer, who often covered the project for the paper before he took a buyout this year. _ He is now an “independent communications consultant,” according to the site.

Seeking an 18-month extension to resolve funding problems with private financing, the project’s developers meet with officials from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which owns the air rights to the area, on Sept. 15. _ “The focus for the turnpike will be trying to finalize the terms of the 18-month extension, but more importantly, making sure the site is cleaned and maintained during that hiatus,” said Mac Daniel, a Turnpike spokesman. _ Turnpike executive director Alan LeBovidge won’t attend the meeting, but will be at a community meeting on the project Sept. 25.

Earlier this year, the Patrick administration pulled back $20 million in project grants and loans, which had come under fire from House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi as a form of corporate welfare.

[statler]

Heh. Two ex-Globe employees doing PR.

[pelhamhall]

Isn't it even more obvious now? Winn's PR firm is out and Beal's PR firm is in. This means all future communications about the project will flow through the Beal Company, not Winn. Oh, and just so you know, all Beal is doing is running a "consulting" job, you know, for a "handsome fee" wink, wink.

The next steps in this extraordinary chess game are going to be fun! Boston hasn't had such a soap opera real estate development since maybe 75 State Street.

I'm thrilled because Beal/Related can do this. I would have liked to have seen Hines or BP, but this is another top-notch choice.

[stellarfun]

Heh. Two ex-Globe employees doing PR.
Now we know why we don't see Palmer's byline on Globe real estate stories anymore.

[pelhamhall]

Does anybody know who owns the old Hard Rock Cafe building? Also, does anybody know who owns the triangular piece of land that houses 1800s tenements along Stanhope Street that is home to Bertuccis, 33, and some small businesses?

These properties stand in the way of joining the Clarendon site and the Columbus Center site.

[Ron Newman]

Is it desirable to join them? I'd rather leave 1800s houses and small businesses alone if they are still standing and in good condition.

[Tim Jackson]

Joining The Clarendon and the Columbus Center is a good idea, but I don't think that it warrants the removal of these brownstones and small, local businesses just for the sake of it. For me to jump on that bandwagon, there would need to be some compelling reason - like if they weren't connected, both projects would fail (which is obviously not the case).

While they would certainly raise each others' values if they were both fully built out, I don't see any need that they should be connected any more than that.

[pelhamhall]

I walked the area yesterday - the buildings offer no value, they are not pretty or historic, they have been altered through the years and today resemble a brick strip mall (complete with national chain restaurant, and soon they will be completely flanked and overshadowed by skyscrapers to both the north and south. The parcels are surrounded by narrow ally-like streets that are poorly lit, poorly maintained and not used.

With Related/Beal building the Clarendon and soon Columbus Center, this little wedge of dilapidated tenements suddenly take on an important role in what that area might transform into.

Again, does anybody know who owns these properties? Or the Hard Rock building?

[Batterymarch]

hard rock bldg is owned by Beal/Related

[stellarfun]

..........

Again, does anybody know who owns these properties? Or the Hard Rock building?

39, 41, 43, 45 Stanhope all owned by Stuart Clarendon Associates, also known as HN Gorin (45 Stanhope is closest to Clarendon.)

35 Stanhope owned by Anthony Gordon

21 and 27 Stanhope owned by Museum Properties Inc

The end building has a Clarendon St. address

[Lurker]

Those parcels are too narrow to be redeveloped at a reasonable profit, especially given ground water issues. Other than perhaps a taller tower in place of the Hard Rock Building I wouldn't expect anything to drastically change. The streets and restaurants will probably receive an upscale makeover with better lighting and that's about it.

[pelhamhall]

I'm thinking more in terms of access, parking, deliveries, construction staging, etc. The CC site is so constricted, but now it has breathing room.

Beal is great at buying parcels in other names (did it at Harvard and BRL). I wonder who really owns those tenements...

Look at the aerial view of that neighborhood and you can begin to see a new CC master plan incorporating a lot of those lands, shifting development off of the costly Turnpike and onto cheaper, dry ground...

Obviously at this point I am just rambling, I have no information other than hunches. From the aerial view it looks like that triangular tenement patchwork would make a nice, inexpensive, out-of-view parking garage.

[Ron Newman]

I like "narrow alley-like streets" with old buildings on them. Especially if they contrast sharply with the surrounding neighborhood. See "Blackstone Block" for another example.

Tearing down occupied businesses and residences to build parking is always a bad idea.

[pelhamhall]

Well, I'm just making random "what-if" suggestions. Who knows what will happen or if any of this land comes into play.

From my experience there yesterday, it is wasted land with ugly *not charming* old hacked together buildings that I think were actually carriage houses behind a row of brownstones that must have been torn down. The window openings suggest these were garages at one point.

I like narrow streets and small buildings in narrow street, small building neighborhoods. This is a super-block, super-development neighborhood and these little scraps are going to be completely "landlocked" and "sunblocked" once Columbus Center is complete. The businesses could all relocated to Columbus on the ground floor of the new tower and everyone would be better off for it.

Again, just my own crazy ramblings - walk that triangle, I'm curious if others feel it is charming or just chilling.

[Ron Newman]

OK, but Blackstone Block is also surrounded by a "super-block, super-development" neighborhood -- Government Center, the Rose Kennedy Greenway, and Quincy Markets (an early 1800s example of a super-block development). Most of the buildings in it are unremarkable, but I'd hate to lose it.

One reason I like Boston is that it presents so many contrasts between adjoining old and new development.

[Tim Jackson]

If it's really as bad as pelhamhall suggests (I have not been down there in a long time, so I cannot remember), then I suggest rehabbing the buildings. You would obviously need to find a developer/owner interested in spending the money, but remaking these into more charming brownstones with narrow streets would be a far superior option than to simply tear them down and build another high rise or mega development.

Does anyone have a decent pic of the area? Just to give myself and others who aren't familiar with the exact area a refresher.

[pelhamhall]

Blackstone Block is a jewel of the city. It is several small cow paths/roads, and charming, restored storefronts, and it has open parkland in front and behind it.

This small strip of buildings wedged between the Clarendon and Columbus Center skyscrapers will be completely walled off by large scale development, and it will have no "front" - they won't even be visible from anything but the two alleys that straddle them - the wide open "front" will now be a 37-story tower.

I always wondered if there's a story behind these properties and always wondered why somebody hasn't attempted to merge them into either the Clarendon or Columbus Center developments - or even a Hard Rock Building redevelopment. They are just floating there, unanchored to anything and about to be even further isolated.

My guess is now that there will be one owner of all surrounding parcels, these will come into play somehow. I wonder who really controls all those LLC's they are all listed under and if that person would play ball.

[JimboJones]

Bertucci's closed months ago.

And, please, no more talk of the Hard Rock. It's in a perfect location now.

[TedG]

Pelhamhall thinks the short brick buildings on Stanhope Street are ugly. I think glass and concrete skyscrapers are ugly. Ron Druker wants to tear down the historic Art-Deco Shreve's building and replace it with one of these. The MFA has already torn down half of its historic building to replace it with a big glass cube. Where Park Square once was we now have an ugly hotel.

Whether all this is good or bad for the city will always be an endless debate because it all depends on personal taste. Just remember though, that once a historic structure is torn down, it's lost forever. Boston is beginning to look an awful lot like Manhattan, as the history and charm that sets it apart from other big cities is slowly disappearing.

[pelhamhall]

Boston looks nothing at all like Manhattan. That's nuts!!!! We should take up a collection and send any poster who writes that on the Fung-Wah down to Manhattan so they never utter those preposterous words agin!!!

The Back Bay, South End, Beacon Hill, North End... Boston is incredible, full of history and charm, and with so many large swaths of the urban core taken up by historic low-rise rowhouses, it is a very unique American city and I am thankful for that - nobody wants to touch these neighborhoods. We are also not a living air museum, we are a viable, economic powerhouse - so any opportunity to grow the core of the city should be seized. This 5-6 building back-alley block that I am speaking of will not be missed. Being "old" doesn't necessarily mean "historic" Especially once these old parcels are completed isolated from the outside world and flanked by narrow alleys.

This block is just a curiosity to me. It's so out of place and random. Clearly there is some kind of a story as to how these old structures survived while being completely flanked by buildings much taller and larger than they are.

Ted - I agree with you that SC&L building should not be torn down. These back-alley garages... come on!

I'm not for tearing them down, I'm just curious why they haven't been yet. They are so out of place there.

To go back on topic - soon there will be one owner for the mega development in its backyard and the mega development in its front yard. How much longer can/will this 5-6 building shanty-ville survive?

[tobyjug]

Those little fellers are kind of cute. Used to be Satch's in there, then Bomboa, then whatever. Old carriage houses. Reminds me of the Blackstone Block, but without tourists. In London they would be "mews flats".

[Tim Jackson]

Today's perfect city requires a mixture of modern, glass and steel high rises and more human scale brownstones - a combo that Boston has. Unless the brownstone is beyond repair, I do not want to see it torn down because, as TedG said earlier, once they're gone, you can't replace them. That being said, I am all for seeing more modern skyscrapers pop up along the Boston skyline. Before we start tearing down brownstones, however, lets cap the Pike and build up all of the surface parking lots around the city first (developing some of the Greenway parcels wouldn't hurt either, but that's a topic for another thread).

[tocoto]

Boston will never look like Manhattan. It's missing the extensive grid and that really sets much of the tone for the look of Manhattan. There are plenty of places in Manhattan with low scale buildings and no highrises in sight. Still the straight sightlines and streetwalls make a scene Boston can never reproduce. Boston also lacks the the grand 20th century buildings and amazing variety of quality of architeture. Boston doesn't have the wealth or business prominence for the extensive and extreme height.

INMO, if anything, integrating the best of Manhattan is a goal Boston should strive for rather than shy away from.

[el raval]

Pelhamhall thinks the short brick buildings on Stanhope Street are ugly. I think glass and concrete skyscrapers are ugly. Ron Druker wants to tear down the historic Art-Deco Shreve's building and replace it with one of these. The MFA has already torn down half of its historic building to replace it with a big glass cube. Where Park Square once was we now have an ugly hotel.

Agreed that demo'ing the Shreve building is a disaster.

However the MFA hasn't torn down any of its historic building; the entire building by Guy Lowell will remain. The east wing (and hopefully the IM Pei west wing soon too) will be demolished to create Foster's glass spine. If this turns out half as beautiful as his redo for the BM in London then the museum will be amazing.

Isn't this the embodiment of the contrast between old and new that others on the board are saying is what makes Boston unique?

There is a fine balance between preserving what give the city its richness and texture and the inexorable march of 'progress'. Alas most cities including Boston never seem to find the right balance and we lose some jewels and get stuck with some empty, banal boxes.

[stellarfun]

If you go here, you can get info on leasing 39-45 Stanhope.

http://www.hngorin.com/listings.cfm

Lots of pictures too.

[Ned Flaherty]

Consultants tapped for financial review of Columbus Center

by Scott Kearnan, South End News Contributor • September 11, 2008

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/ConsultantsHiredSENews11-Sep-2008.jpg

Though their construction site has been dormant since March, developers of the Columbus Center have tapped new resources to push forward with the massive residential/retail complex. The owners of the development, including Boston’s Winn Development, have retained Related Properties of New York and the Beal Companies of Boston to serve as development consultants on the project. The consultants have been asked to conduct a thorough review of the project and determine how, or whether, the Columbus Center should move forward.

“Both The Beal Companies and The Related Companies have been retained as development consultants to perform a review of Columbus Center, which will include an evaluation of costs to determine the financial viability of the project,” said Bruce Beal Sr., of the Beal Companies. Beal is developing The Clarendon, a luxury condo development located near the proposed Columbus Center site. “As owners of the neighboring site The Clarendon, we care deeply about the future of these parcels,” added Beal.

In a Boston Globe article published last week, Beal elaborated that his team was “excited and encouraged by what we’ve seen so far,” though he declined to reveal specifics.

The current moratorium on construction reflects the Columbus Center’s financial woes: Work on the center, an $800 million project that would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike by the South End/Back Bay border, began in November 2007, but was abruptly stopped in March 2008. At the time a spokesman for Winn Development, Alan Eisner, said the developers had concerns about the project’s finances and that they were waiting to hear about the status of loans and grants they hoped to receive from the state. Shortly after Winn halted construction those loans and grants fell through. In April, Governor Deval Patrick’s administration denied the developers’ application for a $20 million Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs grant, better known as a MORE grant, and redirected the $10 million from the grant that it had preliminarily awarded to the project away from Columbus Center and towards other unrelated projects. Patrick’s office cited the halt to construction as a sign that the developers were not ready to begin immediate work on the project. The loss of the MORE grant prompted MassHousing to pull out of more than $20 million in loans it had agreed to give the project. MassHousing argued that the MORE grant funding was crucial to the success of the project (see “Columbus Center hits more snags,” April 10).

Since then, the construction site has been essentially abandoned, developers have scrambled to find new funding, and neighborhood residents - particularly those on Cortes and Isabella Streets directly overlooking the site - have complained about the adverse effects the abandoned construction site has had on quality of life: lost parking signs, closed sidewalks, unsightly debris and the practical dangers of a construction zone left unattended with no clear sign of when or if development will continue.

“There are delays, and we haven’t been pleased with them. They’ve probably frustrated us as much as they have the residents,” said Mac Daniel, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA). The MTA is currently leasing the land for the Columbus Center project, and has been in talks with the developers since March to determine whether to grant their requested 18-month “continuance on any further construction.”

The parties have yet to reach a decision, and the protracted talks have exacerbated local frustrations. At a neighborhood meeting in May 2008, MTA executive director Alan LeBovidge promised concerned residents that the agency would entertain negotiations with the developers for just one more month; if there was no assurance of continued progress at that point, said LeBovidge, the MTA would assume that “this [construction] is not going to happen” and would press for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area (see “Columbus Center countdown,” May 29).

Some rehabilitation has taken place: at the end of August, the developers initiated a clean-up process that is intended to address some of the neighborhood concerns. But with the lease negotiations continuing well past the last issuance of a one-month deadline, residents remain concerned about the continual postponement of a decision and what it bodes for the lumbering fossil of the project.

“We feel the project is important enough that we move carefully during the negotiation process and not act hastily,” said Daniel. “We’ve been frustrated by the delays, but at the same time we hope to make the necessary inroads.”

The next opportunity to push things forward is a meeting between the developers and the MTA on Sept. 15. “If there is still an impasse reached, then I think the executive director’s words to the residents back in May will hold true,” added Daniels. Another meeting, scheduled for Sept. 25, will again bring together the MTA with residents for a status update and the opportunity to address questions and concerns.

Moving forward, the answers to some of those questions will also come from a different source. According to the State House News Service, McDermott Ventures will replace Regan Communications as the public relations firm handling the project.

“When Related Companies and Beal were retained as development consultants for the Columbus Center project, the development team asked that all communications be coordinated through one party,” read a statement provided to South End Newsby McDermott Ventures, explaining the PR switch. “McDermott Ventures has represented the Beal/Related team for the past five years and will handle all external communications during the analysis.”

Link to South End News site: http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=80261

[Ned Flaherty]

Columbus Center update: Sept. 25 meeting postponed

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/CCUpdate-Sep25meetingpostponed.jpg

[ShawnA]

How many stories was this suppose to be?

[Boston02124]

32 or 33

[Tim Jackson]

I believe that the main tower, in the current plan, is 420 ft. and 35 stories.

[Boston02124]

35 would be nice!

[Ned Flaherty]

Columbus Center Update

Meetings indicate movement on project

South End News • September 25, 2008 • by Scott Kearnan

A meeting scheduled for Sept. 25 between neighborhood residents and developers of the Columbus Center project has been cancelled due to an internal scheduling conflict. The meeting, originally announced in the South End News two weeks ago, would have been the third major meeting in ten days between organizations involved with the development of the beleaguered project.

The meetings have yet to yield any identifiable progress on a construction site that has remained dormant, save sporadic clean-up efforts, since March of this year. But rumblings have emerged that The Beal Companies of Boston and Related Companies of New York, tapped earlier this month as financial consultants by the Columbus Center developers, might be identifying ways to save the cash-strapped project.

Earlier this month, and shortly after Beal and Related were identified as consultants by the owners of the project, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) spokesperson Mac Daniel confirmed that a meeting was set between the developing parties and the MTA for Sept. 15. The MTA is currently leasing the land for the Columbus Center project, and has been in talks with the developers since March to determine whether to grant their requested 18-month “continuance on any further construction.”

Neighborhood residents, concerned about the practical and aesthetic repercussions of a permanent construction zone and eyesore, have been clamoring for a resolution and have grown increasingly frustrated with postponed deadlines for a decision. At a neighborhood meeting in May 2008, MTA executive director Alan LeBovidge promised residents that the agency would entertain negotiations with the developers for just one more month; if there was no assurance of continued progress at that point, said LeBovidge, the MTA would assume that “this [construction] is not going to happen” and would press for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area [see “Columbus Center countdown,” May 29].

Negotiations did continue, and when pressed for an explanation by South End News, MTA spokesperson Daniel identified the Sept. 15 meeting as the new goalpost for progress.

“There are delays, and we haven’t been pleased with them. They’ve probably frustrated us as much as they have the residents,” said Daniel at the time. “If there is still an impasse reached [after September 15], then I think the executive director’s words to the residents back in May will hold true.”

Since the statement, Daniels has not returned multiple phone calls inquiring about the Sept. 15 meeting, which was closed to reporters, and negotiations remain ongoing between the Columbus Center developers and the MTA.

On Sept. 17, another meeting was held between the developers, representatives of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and a small handful of community residents.

Among the residents was Ned Flaherty, a longtime critic of the project. Following the meeting, Flaherty began circulating via e-mail a memo of notes gleaned from the discussion. According to Flaherty, Beal’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Peter Spellios identified costs associated with building seven acres of tunnels underneath the Columbus Center complex as the single most prohibitive element in moving the project forward. Flaherty said that the meeting emphasized a search for “cost cutting” alternatives.

Other attending residents came away with a different analysis of the meeting. “I don’t think I recall tunnels being mentioned,” said John Shope of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association. “The discussion was mainly about finding ways to construct the site platform [over the turnpike] in a way that was financially viable.”

The development team says that all angles of the project are still being examined, and that it is too early to deem any single facet as the most prohibitive element.

“The tunnel costs are only part of our analysis,” said a statement released by The Beal Companies. “We are reviewing the engineering and construction methodologies of the entire project top to bottom to be sure that every possible cost efficiency is explored and implemented.”

Also aired at the meeting was a new deadline for a viability report, to be prepared by the development team, on the future of the project.

“They said they would have news for the community and for us by November 15,” said BRA spokesperson Jessica Shumaker. “At that point, they would come back and say whether they thought the project should go forward.” Shumaker categorized the Sept. 17 meeting as an “update” and an opportunity for the developers to announce that “they will be studying ways to bring the cost [of the project] down, and deciding from there whether to proceed.”

A follow up statement released by The Beal Companies did not reiterate the Nov. 15 deadline: “We anticipate having a recommendation for the development team by the end of the year, at the latest.”

However, the development team also acknowledged community frustrations over the stalled project. “The truth is, we would like to get back to the community as soon as possible,” said the developers in a statement. “But we first need some time to complete our study. That said, we sympathize with a community who has seen a tremendous amount of starts and stops and will do our best to meet deadlines we have discussed with the community.”

Critics like Flaherty aren’t holding their breath. “MTA and its developers have missed every major deadline they set for themselves over the last 13 years,” said Flaherty. “So it’s no surprise that this week’s meeting ... wasn’t held.”

Other residents feel more comfortable with the level of communication.

“Frankly, I think we’ve had lots of communication,” said Shope. “My position is that I don’t want to be invited to a meeting unless there is something to discuss.”

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=80825

[atlrvr]

So Ned, per your notes (according to this article), you state that the consultants find the cost of capping the highway the most cost prohibitive aspect of this project. I'm wondering if this changes your opinion that it is cheaper to build on top of a highway as it is to build on raw dirt, or are these consultants incompetent? Or, are they lying to help "California" steal more money from taxpayers?

[Tim Jackson]

Here is another article from the Back Bay Sun regarding the canceled meeting:

Columbus Center update: Sept. 25 meeting postponed

by Sandra Miller

The Columbus Center project continues to stop and start and stop again. A September 25 meeting about Columbus Center with the Cortes Street neighborhood and the Mass. Turnpike has been postponed, due to a schedule conflict from the Turnpike’s executive director. A rescheduled meeting will be announced soon, a Turnpike spokesperson said.

In the meantime, a meeting last week with the Columbus Center Community Construction Committee had developers stating they are still looking to build the deck all at once.

“They would not be changing the project,” said Deputy Director for Community Planning Randi Lathrop. “They are particularly focusing on the platform.”

For 13 years, residents, city and state officials and developers have been working on the ambitious Columbus Center, which promises to link the South End and Back Bay by building over the turnpike and creating a hotel, residential, and retail complex. The project has received public subsidies totaling $116 million, but when the developers’ request for more money was rejected, the project stalled and developers requested an 18-month extension to find more financing. The deadline to approve that extension has passed.

According to the cost consultants investigating the financial viability of the project, they may have found a less expensive way to build the seven acres of tunnels below the skyscraper complex.

that was first proposed 13 years ago. Beal’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Peter Spellios said the "deck" would be called a "platform" due to a different and cheaper engineering technology that can be used. Such changes to the project are the key to making the project affordable, said Spellios.

Before the end of the year, if approved, the project will resume construction, continue its temporary suspension, or be canceled, said McDermott. City officials confirmed that the project would not differ from plans made and approved in 2003.

However, all involved look anxiously to a viability report due November 15 from Related Properties of New York and the Beal Companies of Boston. They were hired by the project’s owners, MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. and WinnCompanies, to evaluate the center’s viability, said Bruce Beal Sr., of the Beal Companies. CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) is the primary financial backer of the project.

"The current go-or-no-go analysis is the final round, and there will be no more chapters after that," said Pamela McDermott, a spokesperson for the developers.

The meeting was also attended by McDermott Ventures’ president and executive vice president, Mayor's Neighborhood Coordinator Tabitha Bennett, BRA Senior Planner Mary Knasas, John Herbert of the South End Ellis Neighborhood Association, John Shope of Bay Village Neighborhood Association, Lynn Andrews of Cortes Street residents, and Karen Lassiter and Joel Miller of Pope Condominium.

The BRA reports that the Columbus Center Committee is working with the developers to fix up the site in the meantime. “They are going to move equipment and trailers, see if parking can be restored, and clean up the site as much as it can,” said Lathrop. “Beal and Related will come back around November 15, and we’ll be meeting back with the construction committee.”

That’s another dubious deadline, said Columbus Center watchdog Ned Flaherty, of 75 Clarendon Street Condominium, who also attended last week’s meeting. He notes a long list of missed deadlines, including those set by the Turnpike Authority to approve the construction delay, a November 2007 deadline to have bank financing by January 15, then February 15. In April, the owners said they would regroup, talk to lenders, work with city and state officials, and come back with a new plan, according to one news story. But Columbus Center President Roger Cassin came back empty handed from a visit to his California financial backers.“We are spending $5 million a month on this,” Cassin told Banker & Tradesman. In May, the MTA set a June deadline to renegotiate, but the developers again missed that deadline, so the MTA extended that deadline to July. “The owners missed that deadline, too,” said Flaherty.

Flaherty said experts disagree on whether the project can be saved, citing a meeting held last week where air rights developer John Rosenthal reportedly told Boston Redevelopment Authority and turnpike officials that such a project is cost-prohibitive, and that he believes that most of Boston's 23 air rights properties will never get developed.

According to Flaherty, the MTA still needs to revise the project’s lease. “The developers defaulted on the 99-year lease signed in May 2006, when they failed to start construction on time and failed to obtain bank loans,” he said. “Under the original lease, the seven acres of tunnels were to have been completed in October 2008, but nothing was ever built. And the latest version of that lease allows the developers to postpone completion to 2025.”

He also noted a revised agreement is needed with CSX, the freight railroad that owns some of the rail lines that would run through tunnels underneath the project; and a new lease is needed for Manulife Insurance, which donated land and funding for Garcia Park, but meanwhile has rented the land to Columbus Center for temporary equipment and materials storage.


LINK (http://www.backbaysun.com/#ST944)

The two quotes in bold above I did not see in the South End News article (Maybe I just missed them when I read it). It looks like we are heading into crunch time. Hopefully, Beal and Related can work on the deck and get the cost cut back significantly, dump most or all of their public subsidy, and then start construction soon. While I believe that the resuming of construction prior to the end of the year is a bit ambitious, I feel like with these two new companies in the mix, CC just may have another chance at life...

[atlrvr]

Before the end of the year, if approved, the project will resume construction, continue its temporary suspension, or be canceled, said McDermott.

How informative.

[tobyjug]

Well, at least that narrows the range of options, doesn't it.

[Ned Flaherty]

So Ned, . . . you state that the consultants find the cost of capping the highway the most cost prohibitive aspect of this project. I'm wondering if this changes your opinion that it is cheaper to build on top of a highway as it is to build on raw dirt . . .?

Re-read my post 1278 on 21 August 2008.

It’s still true, when comparing equivalent projects in the same neighborhood, that total development costs (not merely construction costs) are lower in air rights than on land. _ None of the facts that made that true have changed.

All that’s happened is that politicians are now being asked to swallow two stories:
1 • The cost-cutting consultants just discovered the real problem: _tunnel cost.
2 • Those same consultants just solved the problem that they discovered: _ build cheaper tunnels.

In 2005, the owners bragged that they’d already spent one decade paying $38 million to 100 engineers, lawyers, and architects for the current design, so if that is true then it’s unlikely that these suddenly cheaper tunnels would create such huge savings. _ Also, the owners have been cutting costs for 13 years, and everything that’s left is required for sales or for safety, so since the city and state won’t allow design changes, there’s nothing more to cut.

The owner-developers and their consultants can blame project failure on any problem they might wish to fabricate, and then appear to save the day with any solution they might wish to fabricate. _ But until the Commonwealth finishes a GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards) public audit of the actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies, no one can know the extent to which government is being made wealthy, or getting robbed blind.

The continued secrecy of the financials indicates the latter, because owners who aren’t robbing anyone have nothing to hide.

Roger Cassin’s claim that he performs arithmetic differently than other people do — and that his way of adding and subtracting digits is a company secret — is more ludicrous than ever (“Developers decry data disclosure,” Boston Globe, 16 May 2003.)

[atlrvr]

^ So the consultants are both incompetent and lying, since you are saying their suggestion to lower the cost of tunneling wouldn't create huge savings, and that the project failure is for a reason they are "fabricating".

You, however, didn't allow for the fact that it really is more expensive, which I find odd. You state.


It’s still true, when comparing equivalent projects in the same neighborhood, that total development costs (not merely construction costs) are lower in air rights than on land.


Since you mentioned "same neighborhood" as a qualifier, I'll point out that these same consultants are well into construction on a 30+ story highrise less than 300 feet from the site of Columbus Center. If it is more expensive to build on land, how did they manage to do it a block away, while they are indicating that the cost of the tunnels is prohibiting Columbus Center?

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . So the consultants are both incompetent and lying. . .

No. _ Re-read my message. _ I did not say the consultants are incompetent, nor did I say they are lying.

. . . you are saying their suggestion to lower the cost of tunneling wouldn't create huge savings . . .

No. _ Re-read my message. _ I didn’t say that cheaper tunnels “wouldn’t” create savings; I said they are “unlikely” to do so, and that only a public audit will prove whether they do.

. . . you are saying . . . that the project failure is for a reason they are "fabricating".

No. _ Re-read my message. _ I said that consultants who don’t disclose their data can fabricate whatever problems and solutions they wish, because no one has the data to prove anything one way or another.

. . . it really is more expensive . . .

Untrue. _ Re-read my message. _ I did not say that “it” is more expensive; I said that “total development costs on land” are more expensive. _ I also said that an honest cost comparison requires equivalent projects in the same neighborhood; these two projects are nowhere near equivalent.

. . . these same consultants are well into construction on a 30+ story highrise less than 300 feet from the site of Columbus Center.

In the land-versus-air cost comparison, it means nothing that a different proposal from a different owner got half-built nearby. _ A valid comparison requires equivalent projects. _ Although both proposals were for thirty-some floors, if that alone leads you to treat these two projects as equivalent, then you’re light years from understanding any of this, because such a comparison requires hundreds of factors, and you’re making your conclusion after considering only one of them.

If it is more expensive to build on land, how did they manage to do it a block away, while they are indicating that the cost of the tunnels is prohibiting Columbus Center?

No one “did it” one block away. _ In 3 years, one owner has half-built one project; in 13 years, another owner never built any part of a very different project. _ So what? _ The cost comparison you’re attempting is invalid to begin with: _ you are comparing two different owners, attempting two different projects.

[atlrvr]

*My head hurts*

You're using semantics to avoid the real issue.

Fine....I'll ask one last question.

What do you suppose the motivation for the consultants, Beal and Related (who are building a nearby high-rise), to conclude that the major barrier to Columbus Center is the cost of tunneling?

[JimboJones]

Apparently, "reporting" to the Back Bay Sun means, "taking some guy's quotes and just repeating them, without checking their accuracy."

[KentXie]

This is what I got from Ned:

blah blah blah blah.

Sorry Ned but we've been saying CC is a different project from other buildings since like forever? It is built on air rights which requires a more complex strategy to build to avoid traffic problem, building a deck without collapsing, venting the tunnel, etc etc. No matter what or who develops the project, it will always be different. And yes, it will cost more even if the Clarendon was the same size and design. They can easily plant the core into the ground. CC on the other hand, requires that the deck is stable enough for support beams to divert the weight onto the wall and it also requires that the wall of the pike be strengthen. Until you give us proof that building a tower over air rights is more expensive than over land, I suggest you stop arguing. It's freaking common sense.

[Ned Flaherty]

*My head hurts* You're using semantics to avoid the real issue. . .

Firstly, “semantics” is the study of meaning in communication, and the study of interpretation of signs in narrow social groups. _ How could my study of the developers’ code words and euphemisms avoid “the real issue”? _ And what is that issue, please?

Secondly, it’s unlikely that someone else’s study — of the developers’ words — could create an ache — in your head — but if you’re sure that’s what’s happening, then just stop reading and you should feel better.

What do you suppose the motivation for the consultants, Beal and Related (who are building a nearby high-rise), to conclude that the major barrier to Columbus Center is the cost of tunneling?

These consultants run a for-profit business, so profit is their general motive for everything. _ But no one can assume any specific motive behind their blaming of the project’s failure on tunnel costs, because:_ (a) the consultants aren’t done consulting, and (b) they haven’t disclosed their data.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . "reporting" to the Back Bay Sun means, "taking some guy's quotes and just repeating them, without checking their accuracy."

On 13 December 2007 the Boston Globe reported that the bank loans — which the project owners had claimed for several years in multiple public subsidy applications — never even existed at all.

Since then, there’s been no lack of accuracy by the Back Bay Sun — or any other media outlet. _ Instead, each latest news report typically contains withdrawals, changes, and denials of facts from previous recent reports, often in the same newspaper, often by the same reporter. _ The only change is that people are noticing it now more than before.

What you incorrectly perceive as media inaccuracy is not a failure of any reporter or any newspaper. _ It is the project’s owners — the CalPERS spokeswoman, the MacFarlane spokesman, the 4th Boston public relations team, the two new cost-cutting consultants, the Winn executives who for years refused most inquiries and since 8 July refused all inquiries — regularly contradicting each other, reversing themselves, casually telling a new story at every turn.

Historic example over the last 5 years:
• On 15 May 2003, their proposal portrayed the project as permanently subsidy-free.
• On 29 June 2006, they admitted to the Boston Globe that huge subsidies had been secretly planned “from the get-go” in 1996.

Latest example over the last 3 weeks:
• On 3 September, they told the Boston Globe their viability report was due mid-October.
• On 17 September, they told BRA officials and the public it was due 15 November.
• On 24 September, they told the South End News it was due 31 December.

No one should be surprised when, come late December, they move the deadline — which they themselves chose — to January.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . CC is a different project from other buildings . . . No matter what or who develops the project, it will always be different.

Neither I nor anyone else ever said Columbus Center was the same as any other project. _ Your statement is unnecessary and pointless.

. . . it will cost more even if the Clarendon was the same size and design. . . give us proof that building a tower over air rights is more expensive than over land. . .

You and the other forum members who periodically repeat this argument still haven’t recognized the difference between “cost of construction” and “total cost of development”, which suggests perhaps you’re a student or hobbyist, or perhaps a lobbyist or public relations word-smither. _ But no matter what your background, interest, training, or experience, you could begin to understand this issue, and the fallacy in your thinking so far, by re-reading message 1278 on 21 August.

[atlrvr]

Post #1278 is a gross (mis)simplication.

The most glaring fallacy to your post is that you fail to recognize that their is value to owning the land as opposed to just air rights, and the benefits of that land. That is to say there are building systems that are easier to place into the ground that integrate into the building, but the biggest factor of course is the inability to use below grade space at Columbus Center for parking, mechanical rooms, storage, etc.

Due to height restricitions, a developer only has so much above ground buildable sq. ft. (or volume if you want to be more exact) allowed at that site, and they have to provide for parking in that above ground total. Before you tell me how the parking is profitable, consider that if they could locate the garage below grade AND replace the parking garage with additional residential or commercial development, that it would increase the value of this project.

So no Ned, you haven't proven to the simple student or hobbyist that "Total Cost of Development" is lower over the turnpike than over land.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . their is value to owning the land as opposed to just air rights . . . building systems . . . the inability to use below grade space . . . you haven't proven to the simple student or hobbyist that "Total Cost of Development" is lower over the turnpike than over land.

Had you pulled the 15,000 pages of public records, you’d know that each and every issue which you assume got overlooked — land value, system location, parking, etc. — was already accounted for long ago. _ All those factors already play their appropriate roles in the formula, and the formula showed long ago that total development cost for a given building in Boston air rights is cheaper than the same building on land.

This fact can’t be illustrated for anyone who doesn’t have — and refuses to get — the data that’s needed for the comparison. _ But that doesn’t mean it’s not a fact. _ It only means that the classroom where the fact is being presented is ill-equipped, and the students ill-prepared.

[nico]

And that's a 10 count.

[tommym96]

http://theroosterstrikes.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

[KentXie]

Neither I nor anyone else ever said Columbus Center was the same as any other project. _ Your statement is unnecessary and pointless.

No your statement was pointless. We are the one who said it was different. It was you who said it was the same and that CC would not cost more than a tower that is built on the ground.

You and the other forum members who periodically repeat this argument still haven’t recognized the difference between “cost of construction” and “total cost of development”, which suggests perhaps you’re a student or hobbyist, or perhaps a lobbyist or public relations word-smither. _ But no matter what your background, interest, training, or experience, you could begin to understand this issue, and the fallacy in your thinking so far, by re-reading message 1278 on 21 August.
Your post on 1278 states that building on the air is negligible. That pretty much contradict the fact that capping the highway the most cost prohibitive aspect of the project. And you seem to have assume that all a building requires is decking over the turnpike which you state is negligible. So what about the cost of a ventilation system, especially a high-tech one that you wish to build? How about the limited amount of time to do construction which will increase cost due to the increase time needed to rent construction vehicles? They can't just close that section of pike for hours. How about restructuring the walls on the pike so that it can hold up the tower? These are the total cost you speak of. This cost more than just digging a hole and putting beams into it.

[kz1000ps]

Secondly, it’s unlikely that someone else’s study — of the developers’ words — could create an ache — in your head — but if you’re sure that’s what’s happening, then just stop reading and you should feel better.

You're making my head hurt by responding in your typically encyclopaedic-dry writing style to a comment clearly meant in a facetious manner. I respectfully suggest you stop reading thousands upon thousands of public documents and get to a bar immediately so as to remind yourself of how the rest of the world communicates, e.g. with emotions.

[riffgo]

Ned is obviously a very good writer, but he thinks the rest of the world communicates in his own pedantic style.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . capping the highway . . . decking . . . ventilation . . . high-tech . . . limited amount of time . . . rent construction vehicles . . . restructuring the walls . . . cost more than just digging a hole and putting beams into it.

A valid comparison considers every possible factor, considers each factor only once, and considers no factor twice.

All the factors in your latest list were already accounted for in the 120-page, multi-year analysis by an accredited, nationally recognized property appraiser. _ Because you still don’t realize that they’ve already been accounted for, you keep trying to count them again, which makes your comparison invalid. _ No factor you could mention would support your argument, because every applicable factor is already in the equation. _With every factor already present and accounted for, there’s no factor that you or anyone else can add.

So before you respond with something like, “Hey, what about cement, huh, what about that?” I recommend you learn the complete difference between mere construction cost and total development cost, and then read all of this proposal’s public records on cost. _ Those records show how the total development cost for this air rights project is less than for its land-based equivalent.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^Can you tell us specifically what "total development costs" are cheaper on a deck than on land? I highly doubt that the marketing costs for decked projects are significantly different than projects on land.

[Ned Flaherty]

What cost-cutting consultants might do

Over the last year, the CalPERS real estate investment portfolio returned less than half of what similar large institutional investors earned. _ On 8 June, CalPERS lost a phenomenal $1 billion when it forced its own project to file for bankruptcy rather than give it any more money. _ Then another CalPERS venture in New York fell on the skids. _ (See “Manhattan Property could strain CalPERS”, Wall Street Journal, 27 September 2008, online.wsj.com/article/SB122247312365281013.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo.)

The recently hired consultants now say they’ll finish their viability analysis by New Year’s Eve. _ But by the time their recommendations are published next year, no cost cuts — regardless of how deep they go, how many there are, or how many dollars they save — will fix CalPERS’ dismal portfolio-wide performance far enough to re-start Columbus Center.

In addition, the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association reports that from 2007 to 2008, the primary source of capital used by developers shrank 95%. _ The 5% of loans issued this year went only to developers who put up large amounts of their own cash, and had committed customers signed up before construction started (see “A crash course in credit”, Boston Globe, 28 September 2008).

Since this project has no more developer cash, no more subsidies, no committed customers, and never qualified for a commercial bank loan, the only practical advice that the new consultants might be able to give is to offer to buy, finance, and build the entire venture themselves.

But the new total cost (≈$840 million) remains unacceptably risky even for the $245 billion CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, which makes it even more unacceptable for the much smaller Beal/Related outfit.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . specifically what "total development costs" are cheaper on a deck than on land?

The line item amounts vary from one project to the next, but for Columbus Center . . .

■ A breakdown is in my message 1278 on 21 August 2008.
■ A related analysis is in my message 1395 on 25 September 2008.
■ A summary answer is in message 1405 on 26 September 2008.

[KentXie]

A valid comparison considers every possible factor, considers each factor only once, and considers no factor twice.

All the factors in your latest list were already accounted for in the 120-page, multi-year analysis by an accredited, nationally recognized property appraiser. _ Because you still don’t realize that they’ve already been accounted for, you keep trying to count them again, which makes your comparison invalid. _ No factor you could mention would support your argument, because every applicable factor is already in the equation. _With every factor already present and accounted for, there’s no factor that you or anyone else can add.

So before you respond with something like, “Hey, what about cement, huh, what about that?” I recommend you learn the complete difference between mere construction cost and total development cost, and then read all of this proposal’s public records on cost. _ Those records show how the total development cost for this air rights project is less than for its land-based equivalent.
Then prove to me that construction cost on the CC over air is less than a CC over land. Since you say construction cost accounts for all materials, including equipment and construction material, etc etc, then tell me wouldn't renting equipments require more cost since it takes longer to construct CC over air due to time limits caused by the Pike, tell me wouldn't the decking material cost more than digging a hole, tell me wouldn't the material use to strengthen the walls on the pike cost more since that is not required if CC was built over land? And how about the various other cost, the cost to hire architect to specially design the support structure over the pike? Construction Cost = all materials needed to build a tower and due to the fact that CC over the air requires more material and more complex technique to build including longer renting periods for construction equipments, CC over air would cost more than CC over land. What total construction cost would include is the construction cost itself, the cost of the land (aka air right), the hiring of workers, hiring of architect to design the structure over the pike, etc.

But let's just make this plain and simple. Take out the terms construction cost and total construction and combine them into just one term everyone can understand. The cost to build the project that encompasses all cost, whether indirect or direct. With everything included (for example what I mention above and the cost of paying for the land/upkeeps) the cost to build the project will be greater than if it is built on land.

[BarbaricManchurian]

The line item amounts vary from one project to the next, but for Columbus Center . . .

■ A breakdown is in my message 1278 on 21 August 2008.
■ A related analysis is in my message 1395 on 25 September 2008.
■ A summary answer is in message 1405 on 26 September 2008.

Which specific "total development costs" are cheaper for Columbus Center than an equivalent structure on land? Please do not avoid the question again, I want specifics, not more complaining about people who do not read 15,000 pages of information of which can be interpreted many ways. You're not winning any converts with your refusal to answer even the most basic questions (and don't spin it by saying "oh, but I actually AM answering the question", when you're not, lying is bad you know).

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . total construction cost would include . . . the construction cost itself, the cost of the land (aka air right) . . . the cost of pyaing for the land/upkeeps . . .


No!

The term is “air rights”, not “air right” [sic].
The word is “paying” not “pyaing” [sic].
There is no word called “upkeeps” [sic].
“Construction cost” does not include property.
“Total development cost” does include property.

The many people who grasp the air-versus-land comparison calculation easily either know — or else are willing to learn — the definitions of these two cost terms (“construction” versus “total-development”), and they recognize each term’s role in the analysis. _ Because you refuse to learn these definitions, and refuse to use them correctly in the calculation that makes the comparison, there is no way to help you any further.

[Ned Flaherty]

Which specific "total development costs" are cheaper for Columbus Center than an equivalent structure on land? . . . I want specifics, not . . . 15,000 pages of information of which can be interpreted many ways.

When I give you the summary, you argue because you don’t have the data, but when I offer the data, you refuse it and demand a summary. _ The very specifics you demand are found among the very pages you refuse to read, so your inability to understand the air-versus-land comparison calculation is a problem entirely of your own making.

And it’s silly to fear that you’ll interpret this raw data “many ways”; that would happen only if you don’t know what you’re doing in the first place. _ Digging deeper into this data only makes the answer clearer.

Message 1278 on 21 August 2008 answers your question using plain, clear English and elementary (school) arithmetic. Most people understand it instantly; a few people take a tad longer, and some need several attempts. _ So, re-read #1278.

If that doesn’t work, give all of #1278 — unedited — to a mentor who’s had success walking you through similar exercises. _ It’s rare that anyone fails to grasp it, but if re-reading a few times with a coach still doesn’t work, then perhaps you are that rare bird.

[shawn]

No!

The term is “air rights”, not “air right” [sic].
The word is “paying” not “pyaing” [sic].
There is no word called “upkeeps” [sic].
“Construction cost” does not include property.
“Total development cost” does include property.

The many people who grasp the air-versus-land comparison calculation easily either know — or else are willing to learn — the definitions of these two cost terms (“construction” versus “total-development”), and they recognize each term’s role in the analysis. _ Because you refuse to learn these definitions, and refuse to use them correctly in the calculation that makes the comparison, there is no way to help you any further.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.

Ned, you probably have some valid points worth making, and as a foil to this site's heavily pro-construction bias, your input would be worthwhile . . . if you weren't such a dick about it. Mocking someone surreptitiously through grammar corrections ([sic]) make you seem petty and greatly decrease your posts' credibility.

[BarbaricManchurian]

When I give you the summary, you argue because you don’t have the data, but when I offer the data, you refuse it and demand a summary. _ The very specifics you demand are found among the very pages you refuse to read, so your inability to understand the air-versus-land comparison calculation is a problem entirely of your own making.

And it’s silly to fear that you’ll interpret this raw data “many ways”; that would happen only if you don’t know what you’re doing in the first place. _ Digging deeper into this data only makes the answer clearer.

Message 1278 on 21 August 2008 answers your question using plain, clear English and elementary (school) arithmetic. Most people understand it instantly; a few people take a tad longer, and some need several attempts. _ So, re-read #1278.

If that doesn’t work, give all of #1278 — unedited — to a mentor who’s had success walking you through similar exercises. _ It’s rare that anyone fails to grasp it, but if re-reading a few times with a coach still doesn’t work, then perhaps you are that rare bird.

How about I give #1418 to a mentor who probably would tell me not to respond to “bullies”? I’m tired of your insulting condescension, you are not any more important than any of us, no matter what you think. You are simply a garden-variety NIMBY who likes to look down on other people, pretending to be a member of the elite. I should probably send a few of these posts to the South End News and the Back Bay Sun; they’ll probably think twice before publishing any more of your screeds against Columbus Center. Seriously, get a social life, if you are the member of the elite that you fancy yourself to be, you shouldn’t be insulting random people on the Internet over a stalled construction project that will not affect your quality of life whatsoever (by your own admission: UFPs don’t cause instant death, CC won’t block your views, you say you don’t have anything against the income of those who may inhabit CC, so where’s the harm?). Get some drinks at the Ritz, or something (may I suggest getting a JOB?). Sheesh……….

Oh yeah, and I asked you a question, and you refused to answer it in that post, seems like you want to annoy people, forcing them to go back 50 pages, rather than people giving answers that they'll actually read, like you say you do...I actually want to know the answer, and you steadfastly refuse even the most basic of requests. Refusal to come up with information supporting the NIMBY’s (meaning yours) position = FAIL.

[kmp1284]

And acquisition costs more on land than in air. _ At urban Boston’s current rate for un-developed, un-contaminated, zoning-free land of $30 million per acre, these 7 acres anywhere else in town would cost $210 million. _ But MTA charged this developer only $12 million, generating a $198 million savings on property alone.

Thirty million? Get a source.

[KentXie]

No!

The term is “air rights”, not “air right” [sic].
The word is “paying” not “pyaing” [sic].
There is no word called “upkeeps” [sic].
“Construction cost” does not include property.
“Total development cost” does include property.

The many people who grasp the air-versus-land comparison calculation easily either know — or else are willing to learn — the definitions of these two cost terms (“construction” versus “total-development”), and they recognize each term’s role in the analysis. _ Because you refuse to learn these definitions, and refuse to use them correctly in the calculation that makes the comparison, there is no way to help you any further.
Ooops, When I wrote total construction cost I meant to say total development cost. That is a mistake on my part. However, you have yet to answer any of my questions and have use spelling correction in its place to avoid answering how the total development cost would not be more over air than it is over land when construction cost, which is part of the total development cost, will be more over air than over land. Please answer the question, and no don't point me to post number ####. I read them already and have not, and I repeat NOT, (as in NOT, a negative term) found the answer to my question.

[KentXie]

Actually you know what? I don't need the answer anymore. You haven't proven me much of anything since you came on this board and you acted as a complete dick about it the whole time. So I guess I'll just join the rest of the forumers who believe that we are just beating a dead horse. The project is approve no matter whichever way you look at it. I don't give a crap if the loans were not approve etc etc, the fact remains, if the project was not approved, construction would not have started. Money and a better economic condition is all this project needs to get it going. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who thinks he is better than everyone else.

[Ned Flaherty]

project that will not affect your quality of life whatsoever . . . so where’s the harm?

Quality of life — for me, for you, and everyone — is affected by the quality of city and state urban planning. _ In one or more ways, this proposal affects everyone in Massachusetts, so anyone who chooses to endorse it should consider the harms that you asked about, which include:

1. Qualifications, Competition, Disclosure • Governor Cellucci accepted $10,000 from the developers, waived the developer qualifications, refused all competing proposals, and ensured there would be no financial disclosure.
2. Public Review • Mayor Menino let the developers tell him who he could appoint to his review committee (and later acccepted a $50,000 donation from the development team), and on every vote the 7 members in seats owned by the developer always overrode the 4 members in democratically nominated seats.
3. Master Plan • Mayor Menino and the MTA adopted a Turnpike Master Plan that requires a contiguous, 2-acre park whenever there is a skyscraper, but then let the developers replace the required 2-acre park with a 633-car garage.
4. Public Open Space • Three years after the project’s official approval, the city and state allowed the developers to convert all the public park-ettes to private gardens, over which the public has no control and no recourse.
5. Public Subsidy • In public meetings, in their written proposal, and in the Boston Globe, the developers proposed a subsidy-free project. _ But after approval, they requested at least 15 subsidies totaling $222 million — mostly from anti-poverty programs — to pay their costs and profits at what they call “the city’s answer to Rodeo Drive [Beverly Hills] and Fifth Avenue [New York City]” — the very antithesis of poverty. _ The recently hired cost-cutting consultants are specialists in this strategy.

These are the most universal and easily understood of the public harms; there are more.

. . . seems like you want to annoy people, forcing them to go back 50 pages, rather than people giving answers that they'll actually read

No, not at all. You could have reached my message 1278 on page 128 with just 3 clicks. When a prior message is that easy and quick to reach, there’s little point in re-posting it after every subsequent inquiry. _ I once re-posted an entire answer long ago, but forum members pointed out that it’s better to refer than repeat, so I took their advice, and you should, too.

. . . I actually want to know the answer, and you steadfastly refuse even the most basic of requests . . .

OK, so if the answer is all that you want, then let’s try another approach.

1. Stop the name-calling and character assassination.
2. Itemize, explain, and justify how you think the land-versus-air cost comparison calculation works.
3. Answer other forum members’ inquiries.

You re-asking and me re-answering about my presentation hasn’t worked very well, so perhaps other people’s questions about your version will resolve this faster for everyone. _ Just a thought.

One friendly word of caution: you’ll be going up against a 120-page professional report by a lifetime, certified, nationally known property appraiser, so it behooves you to understand that report thoroughly before trying to imitate it, revise it, or challenge it.

[Lrfox]

you’ll be going up against a 120-page professional report by a lifetime, certified, nationally known property appraiser

Translation: "you'll be going up against someone who has been giving his/her opinion for a while." I can find appraisers who can give me almost any number I would like. The bottom line is an appraisal is someone's opinion whether it's in a 120 page report or not.

[atlrvr]

^ Correct. I enjoy how this appraisal is being held up as the truth, but the conclusions of a respectable consulting team that runs counters must somehow be flawed. Different agendas, different conclusions.

[Ned Flaherty]

Ooops, When I wrote total construction cost I meant to say total development cost. That is a mistake on my part . . . you have yet to answer . . . how the total development cost would not be more over air than it is over land when construction cost, which is part of the total development cost, will be more over air than over land

I did answer before, but will say it differently this time. _ The land-versus-air cost comparison shows total development cost for Columbus Center to be cheaper in air than it would be on land for 3 previously documented reasons:

1. There are costs over land that are nil over air (e.g., demolition, excavation, contamination, groundwater remediation).

2. The previous tunnel-basement-deck construction cost of only $1.7 – $5.3 million per acre at this 7-acre air rights site is now even lower, because the cost-cutting consultants just adopted cheaper designs and construction methods.

3. The MTA charged the developer a discounted property price. _ Un-developed, un-contaminated, zoning-free land always commands a premium price. _ Urban Boston’s current rate for 7 such acres is about $210 million, but MTA charged only $12 million, generating a $198 million savings on property alone.

The savings from avoided expenses, cheaper tunnels, and discounted property altogether make the total development cost less over air than on land.

. . . The project is approve . . .

No, the proposal is not “approve” [sic]. _ It was never fully approved, as shown in the 3,400-page lease, which lists 9 approvals obtained, versus 27 not obtained. _ The MTA never even approved the start of tunnel construction.

. . . I don't give a crap if the loans were not approve

But you really should care if loans were not “approve” [sic]. _ This $840 million, privately owned, investor-backed project needs an array of bank loans to pay for construction. _ Those loans are a necessity, and a prerequisite to all else. _ Over 13 years, not one dollar was ever loaned for this proposal, and the refusal of the commercial banking world to finance it crippled it.

. . . if the project was not approved, construction would not have started.

This project never started construction. _ The developers did spend last fall and winter on what they called “site preparation work” and “pre-construction activity”, but that was just a theatrically staged event intended to keep investors from bailing out (they bailed anyway), and intended to keep bankers from refusing loans (they refused anyway). The proof that it was only theatrically staged busy-work — and that nothing was ever built — can be seen by comparing site photographs over the last 13 years to the actual site today. _ Except for several pieces of rusted steel stuck in the dirt, the moonscape remains unchanged.

. . . Money and a better economic condition is all this project needs. . .

The needs are deeper, wider, and more complex than you realize. _ In the “all this project needs” department, don’t forget:

● $840 million has to come from investors, and/or banks, and/or taxpayers;
● 443 mortgage loans on multi-million dollar condos where the homeowner and bank are both legally and financially responsible for inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and insuring an interstate transportation corridor railway/roadway tunnel for 99 years;
● legislature approval for cheaper tunnel design;
● legislature approval for cheaper tunnel construction; and
● other issues not necessary to consider so long while any of the above remain unresolved.

[KentXie]

Site preparation work, pre-construction activity or not, a project that is not approved would not be allow to dig up the land in preparation for decking if it's not approved.

And here's my final post until something of substance comes up.

And just FYI, upkeep means maintenance.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . I can find appraisers who can give me almost any number I would like . . . an appraisal is someone's opinion . . .

Yes, appraisers and their work are sometimes bought. _ And yes, even when not bought, such work is only an opinion. _ And yes, any fair-market-value appraisal which contributes to or supports a below-fair-market-value price is, by definition, inaccurate and flawed. _ But the fact that appraisals are opinions and may be inaccurate is irrelevant to this discussion. _ The appraisal’s accuracy has no bearing on the topic at hand: _ total development cost. _ The point is that building Columbus Center in air is less costly than on land, because an appraisal — accurate or otherwise — was used to discount the property.

Columbus Center’s owners did find a flawed appraiser, did get a flawed appraisal, did trick MTA into discounting the property, and the resulting below-market price is part of what makes building Columbus Center less costly in air than it would be on land.

. . . I enjoy how this appraisal is being held up as the truth. . .

No, not at all. _ You completely misunderstand; I never said this appraisal is anywhere near the truth. _ What I’ve long said is that an inaccurate appraisal was used to discount the property below market value, which is what makes this project less costly to build in air than on land.

[sidewalks]

'Building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land.' Feel free to cite whichever numbers, reports, appraisals or documents you like, Ned. It doesn't matter. You aren't credible and neither are your figures. You might as well spend your days arguing that Bunker Hill Community College is more difficult to get into than Harvard, or that a little leaguer is better than Josh Beckett, or that the electricity costs on your condo are more than those of Fenway Park. I think you may well have convinced yourself that this absurd contention is true, but the rest of us don't need to read 10,000 pages of public documents to see that it is pure malarkey.

[pelhamhall]

The project is approved, ready to build and enjoys widespread government and public support. A very, very small handful of activists oppose this project *yawn* and nobody cares at this point.

The financial/credit world was in turmoil, now is in crisis. When that issue - and that issue alone - is resolved, Columbus Center will rise. Done deal. No problem. Fake deadline after fake deadline will be passed, and the property will only move ahead when the credit crisis subsides. You can't put that in writing, so you don't.

Beal/Related will take this project over and they have the deep pockets and the intestinal fortitude to proceed. Again, this is a done deal. There is nothing to argue about. Tower One of Columbus Center (the Clarendon) is already rising and sales are doing great! This is how we know Columbus Center will be built.

There is nothing more to argue about. Ned's quixotic campaign against Columbus Center reminds me of the Cake song "the Distance" with lyrics: "the arena is empty, except for one man/ still striving and driving as fast as he can/ the sun has gone down and the moon has gone up/ and long ago somebody left with the cup"

Ned is the one man at the empty arena. The battle is over. The sun has gone down on his arguments. A dark horse, Robert Beal, is now holding the cup in victory.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . a project that is not approved would not be allow to dig up the land in preparation for decking if it's not approved. . .

That’s untrue. _ Digging without approvals should never be allowed, of course.

But it was allowed.

The developers didn’t admit to MTA until November 2007 that the loans they’d claimed on subsidy applications since 2005 never even existed, so one of the current controversies in the halls of city and state government is why several agencies approved the start of site preparation over two years ago even though the project remained un-financed, and why agencies tentatively approved subsidies without confirming the loans claimed on the applications. _ Re-read “Turnpike may halt Columbus Center job” (Boston Globe, 13 December 2007).

It became such an embarrassment that Mayor Menino and the BRA just drafted tough new rules so this never happens again. _ Re-read “Menino wants assurances from developers, proof of project financing” (Boston Globe, 12 August 2008).

. . . upkeep means maintenance.

Well, yes, of course “upkeep” means “maintenance”. _ But the discussion was how total development cost is less in air than it is on land. _ And maintenance is not one of the factors in total development cost. _ Maintenance is only relevant to operational cost, which is borne by future occupant-owners, and which is separate and distinct from total development cost, which is borne by developer-owners. _ So, although I do know what “upkeep” means, I still wonder what you mean when you include it as a factor in total development cost.

[Ned Flaherty]

'Building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land.' . . . Feel free to cite whichever numbers, reports, appraisals or documents you like . . . the rest of us don't need to read 10,000 pages of public documents to see that it is pure malarkey.

By confusing “building” with “total development”, you’ve repeated the fundamental mistake that keeps reappearing — surprisingly — on a forum where people are supposed to know better.

You wrote, “building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land” but I never said that.

“Construction cost” is not the same as “total development cost”. _ “Construction cost” is only one of many factors that comprise “total development cost”. _ Public records and the developers’ own numbers together show that this proposal’s “total development cost” is less in air than it would be on land.

[SeamusMcFly]

By confusing “building” with “total development”, you’ve repeated the fundamental mistake that keeps reappearing — surprisingly — on a forum where people are supposed to know better.

You wrote, “building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land” but I never said that.

“Construction cost” is not the same as “total development cost”. _ “Construction cost” is only one of many factors that comprise “total development cost”. _ Public records and the developers’ own numbers together show that this proposal’s “total development cost” is less in air than it would be on land.

Looks like you are either fabricating a mistake or making one yourself. The statement of building over a highway etc. is correct. There is a big difference between building and Building. The one with the lower case b indicates the act of constructing something over the highway, and not the cost of a Building over the highway. Stop trying to point out mistakes and answer a freaking question. You are not on the witness stand, and nothing stated in this forum constitutes any kind of contract or binding agreement.

The cost of building a deck versus excavation and backfilling for underground services may or may not be more expensive. I would like to hear actual cost comparisons to prove either way. But, my first guess would be that building (total development cost) from the ground up would be much cheaper than building over air rights. Unless of course you were building on a brown site where extensive remediation or other constraints were to be included.

The cost to purchase the rights to build over the highway, it would make sense, would be cheaper than purchasing the same amount of buildable land, but there are then many added costs to the air rights development that could potentially more than offset this initial difference.

Try to always remember that this is a public forum, and not one only for those with extensive knowledge of the legal system. It is also not a pre-requisite, that you possess a great grammatical aptitude (although appreciated). Just talk like a human, and if you want to tell people they are wrong all the time. Try to give a bit more info and educate, not cut everyone down, and continue to condescend like a supreme all knowing being. Like was said earlier. You're just some dude.

[Ned Flaherty]

Thirty million? Get a source.

In 2001, competitive bidders formally offered the City of Boston $23 million for a zoned but un-developed 0.85-acre (37,388 s.f.) parcel at 580 Washington Street.

That per-square-foot price needs three upward adjustments:

(1) $4.14 million for the 18% increase in size to 1.0 acre;
(2) $6.24 million for 7 years of appreciation at 3%/year;
(3) $5 million for the rare but valuable characteristic of zoning-free property in an urban setting.

That yields about $38 million per un-zoned, un-developed acre today, and even more for acreage that requires virtually no groundwater remediation and has virtually no soil contamination.

At $38 million per acre, a 7-acre site in an equally valuable part of town is worth $266 million, but MTA decided to charge this developer only $12 million, or 5 cents on the dollar.

What makes Columbus Center less costly to build in air than on land, among other things, is discounting the fair market value by 95%.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^How much did the developers of the Pru, Copley Place, and John Hancock garage pay for their air rights? That is the valid comparison, because the construction methods are the same, unlike air rights vs. land which have different construction methods.

[bosdevelopment]

I've been following this thread for many months now and have yet to chime in.

I have one question for Ned Flaherty:

When was the last time you went to court and got exactly what you wanted?

[atlrvr]

Wait a minute!!! Ned, are you kidding me? You are using Haywood Place as your comparative parcel?

Please, let's look at the facts.

Haywood Place = .85 acres
277 Residential Units
373,000 sq. ft.
FAR = 9.98

Columbus Center = 7 acres (Ned's estimate that I didn't check)
343 Residential Units (including 15% affordable)
191 Hotel Rooms
1,063,930 sq. ft.
FAR = 3.50

This means Haywood Place is entitled to be 285% as dense as Columber Center!

Using your "upward adjusted" of $38,000,000/acre, the true value of Columbus Center is about $13,326,000 per acre given allowable development rights.

.....and even that's high, consider you added $5,000,000 to your adjustment, for the claim that is unzoned, which is misleading, because it is still only entitled to allow for what was approved.

[pelhamhall]

Hayward Place is also in the Combat Zone while Columbus Center is in the Back Bay/South End. But why should we let little details like facts foul up our arguments? It's all so silly, it's like we are debating some newly proposed project. This is an already approved project. Case closed, argument over! Nothing left to fight over.

[Ned Flaherty]

How much did the developers of the Pru, Copley Place, and John Hancock garage pay for their air rights? That is the valid comparison, because the construction methods are the same, unlike air rights vs. land which have different construction methods.

The rents of 1962 are interesting only to a historian, and are invalid for comparing today’s projects.

● Firstly, the construction methods are no longer the same, because the technologies of 1962 are not the technologies of 2008.

● Secondly, the rents are no longer the same, because markets, interest rates, nominal tax rates, effective tax rates, and a slew of other factors are very different now.

● Thirdly, if you’re trying to finish the research on the air-versus-land cost comparison, you can’t just compare air to air, because that’s no comparison at all; you have to compare an air site to a land site, with the same building on each one.

● Finally, you can’t just assume that air rights rent is whatever you hear in rumors on the street, because:

(1) MTA charges up to 12 different categories of air rights rent to a given tenant.
(2) Many of those 12 rents are substantial amounts but obscurely documented.
(3) MTA is notoriously secretive about air rights deals.
(4) Newspaper reporters usually just print whatever a developer claims; they rarely read the lease itself.

Be sure you read all the actual leases, and all the subsequent amendments, and find all the rent categories that apply at each property.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Columbus Center = 7 acres (Ned's estimate that I didn't check) . . . 343 Residential Units (including 15% affordable) . . . 191 Hotel Rooms . . . 1,063,930 sq. ft. . . .

Your 4 most important numbers are wrong.

Acreage • You incorrectly wrote that Columbus Center’s 7 acres is “Ned’s estimate”. _ But the 7-acre figure is neither mine, nor is it an estimate. _ The city’s Planned Development Area Development Plan itemizes the project as “303,742 square feet, approximately 6.97 acres” (BRA, 19 November 2003). And California wrote in its latest subsidy application, signed under pains and penalties of perjury, that the project size is “almost 7 acres”.

Housing units • You incorrectly wrote that the housing units total “343” and “15%” (37 units) are affordable. _ But the latest lease is for 447 units, and only 10% are affordable.

Hotel rooms • You incorrectly wrote that the hotel is “191 rooms”. _ But the latest public subsidy application is for 162 hotel rooms.

Square footage • You incorrectly wrote that the project square footage is “1,063,930 s.f.”. _ But the latest lease is for 1,541,350 s.f.

Having under-counted 23% of the housing (104 units), over-counted 18% of the hotel rooms (29 rooms), and under-counted 31% of the project size (477,420 square feet), you may want to just start this over from scratch.

. . . the claim that is un-zoned . . . is misleading, because it is still only entitled to allow for what was approved.

No. _ By state law, turnpike air rights are un-zoned, so there’s nothing misleading about saying so. _ And a site where everything that gets proposed is already subject to zoning is far less valuable than a site where anything can be proposed because there is no zoning.

. . . Haywood Place is entitled to be 285% as dense as Columber Center! . . .

After correcting and re-calculating the 4 data points above, do you still say Haywood [sic] Place is “entitled to be 285%” as dense as Columber [sic] Center? And if so, how do you arrive at that?

[Ned Flaherty]

Hayward Place is also in the Combat Zone . . .

No. _ Hayward Place is in an area of hotels, university offices, a Registry branch, first-run cinemas, and the Opera House. _ Your porn neighborhood no longer exists, because in 1974, the city began dismantling the Combat Zone via the BRA containment policy. _ All that remains today are 2 obscure bars, and they’re not at Hayward Place, which now is chock-a-block with tourist family hotels, shopping, and entertainment.

. . .This is an already approved project . . .

No. _ It was never fully approved, as shown in the 3,400-page lease, which lists 9 approvals obtained, versus 27 not obtained. _ The MTA never even approved the start of tunnel construction; last winter’s “pre-construction site preparation activity” was a theatrical event staged to keep investor money flowing (that ploy failed) and to attract bankers (that failed, too).

[pelhamhall]

I imagine it'll be 12-18 months at least before Beal ratchets up construction there again. In the mean time, maybe you can spend some time creating some pretty charts about UFP levels or something?

There's really not much else to debate, it must drive you crazy to have lost this giant quixotic fight that has come to define much of your free time. Quite literally, after thousands of posts, thousands of hours of public meetings, and thousands of editorial words the net outcome is that you convinced absolutely nobody in any position of power to do anything.

The project is approved, ready to build, and enjoys widespread public support, most significantly from 73%-Approval-Rating-Menino. He's our mayor for life, you know.

[atlrvr]

With your numbers I get that Haywood Place is 196% as dense as Columbus Center, which still calculates to $19.3M per acre based on what is entitled for development.

My point about it being "unzoned" is that you are assigning a $5M per acre value. For my calculations above, I included your assumption, but I maintain that regardless of zoning, land value is based on what can be entitled for a specific parcel. Certainly you understand this distinction.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . There's really not much else to debate . . .

Yes, there is much left to debate, including new issues that arose since the engagement of cost-cutting consultants. _ The unresolved issues you’re overlooking fall into 3 general groups:
● known issues already mentioned on this forum;
● known issues not yet publicized;
● known issues unlikely to ever be publicized but nonetheless affecting the proposal.

. . . you convinced absolutely nobody in any position of power to do anything . . .

That’s untrue. _ None of the owners, agencies, private firms, or elected officials who are affecting this proposal have any need to phone you when they do something, so of course you wouldn’t know what is done, by whom, or when, or how, or why. _ But people in power have already been persuaded to do plenty:

2006
● U.S. government denied a $60 million income tax credit subsidy — the 1st time.
● All potential banks (Anglo Irish, et. al.) declined to lend even one dollar.

2007
● U.S. government denied a $60 million income tax credit subsidy — the 2nd time.
● The Boston Globe opposed subsidizing the proposal.
● Massachusetts declined public funding because CC is 100% privately owned.
● The new owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) turned off the cash spigot.

2008
● After spending $110 million but building nothing, site preparation halted.
● The former owner (Winn) ran out of cash.
● The Boston Business Journal opposed subsidizing the proposal.
● The Boston Herald opposed subsidizing the proposal.
● The South End News opposed subsidizing the proposal.
● The Banker & Tradesman opposed proceeding any further.
● The new owners declined the former owner’s appeals for more cash.
● Several national lenders declined to provide any replacement funding.
● Tentative Massachusetts subsidies were withdrawn.
● Potential new state subsidies were rebuffed.
● Tentative Boston subsidies were withdrawn or suspended by the state’s decisions.
● Potential new city subsidies were declined.

. . . The project is approved . . .

No, it was never fully approved. _ The latest 3,400-page lease lists 9 approvals obtained, but 27 not obtained.

. . . The project is . . . ready to build . . .

No, it’s not ready. _ The above-ground building plans were never done. _ And the below-ground tunnel/deck plans dated 3 February 2006 just got scrapped by the cost-cutting consultants, in favor of new, cheaper designs and construction techniques they now call “platforms”. _ With no building plans, no new platform plans, and site preparation never finished, the project is nowhere near “ready to build”.

. . . the project . . . enjoys widespread public support . . .

It doesn’t matter whether by “public” you mean citizens or government, because either way, the support you imagine is gone now. _ The occasional citizen support seen years ago has all faded, with the only remaining voices coming mostly from those who are — or hope to be — part of the real estate industry gravy train. _ They’re entitled to their opinions, of course, but that group is too tiny to be called “widespread public”. _ Likewise, public subsidy support from city, state, and federal government also has evaporated.

. . . the project enjoys . . . support, most significantly from . . . Menino

No. _ After 13 years, even the Mayor is tired of waiting. _ When asked if the City of Boston would consider another $40 million via a public subsidy called District Improvement Financing, Menino spokeswoman Susan Elsbree told the Boston Globe on 2 July, “We will not.”

[Ned Flaherty]

With your numbers . . . I get that Haywood Place is 196% as dense as Columbus Center, which still calculates to $19.3M per acre based on what is entitled for development.

Well, then, we’re done with this portion of the air-versus-land cost comparison, because regardless of whether we use

your density-based fair market property value: 7 acres X $19.3 million = $135 million,
or my density-free fair market property value: 7 acres X $30 million = 210 million,

both values prove that the mere $12 million that this developer actually pays MTA results in total development cost that is less in air than on land.

. . . regardless of zoning, land value is based on what can be entitled for a specific parcel. Certainly you understand this distinction.

Yes, I do, and it’s precisely because of that “what-can-be-entitled” distinction that un-zoned land qualifies for a price premium, and zoned land does not. _ Un-zoned property has unlimited commercial potential, whereas zoned property is far more restricted. _ Both values are further refined by whatever is finally approved, but right from the outset, un-zoned land has a larger and more valuable playing field of possibilities.

[pelhamhall]

You are exactly wrong.

With your face buried in outdated documents and fine print minutia, you are forgetting the bird's eye view level of how development gets done in Boston.

Go ahead and pick apart countless documents to support some fantasy alternative world, but since you are not involved with real estate development, let me put it to you bluntly - in this city, Boss Menino rules and Boss Menino wants this built. He's not tepid or cautious in his backroom support.

Therefore, with the financing in place - and this is the sole remaining and legitimate controversy - the green-lighted Columbus Center gets built.

Beal, with the hat of an outsider, will try to wrangle this financing debate before taking over the project. It should be a fun ride.

But with people like you and a handful of tin-foil hat anti-progressives on one side of the debate and Boss Menino and his Machine on the other side of the debate, you might want to consider getting a new hobby!

[BarbaricManchurian]

The rents of 1962 are interesting only to a historian, and are invalid for comparing today’s projects.

● Firstly, the construction methods are no longer the same, because the technologies of 1962 are not the technologies of 2008.

● Secondly, the rents are no longer the same, because markets, interest rates, nominal tax rates, effective tax rates, and a slew of other factors are very different now.

● Thirdly, if you’re trying to finish the research on the air-versus-land cost comparison, you can’t just compare air to air, because that’s no comparison at all; you have to compare an air site to a land site, with the same building on each one.

● Finally, you can’t just assume that air rights rent is whatever you hear in rumors on the street, because:

(1) MTA charges up to 12 different categories of air rights rent to a given tenant.
(2) Many of those 12 rents are substantial amounts but obscurely documented.
(3) MTA is notoriously secretive about air rights deals.
(4) Newspaper reporters usually just print whatever a developer claims; they rarely read the lease itself.

Be sure you read all the actual leases, and all the subsequent amendments, and find all the rent categories that apply at each property.

Which construction methods are different? And we tried comparing land-to-air before, but you rejected it (The Clarendon, which is as close of an comparison as you can get). And of course the rents for 1962 are different, it's called INDEXING FOR INFLATION. If you want to be even more accurate, you can adjust for all of the factors that you listed. It is a valid comparison, regardless of your ducking the question.

[KentXie]

Which construction methods are different? And we tried comparing land-to-air before, but you rejected it (The Clarendon, which is as close of an comparison as you can get). And of course the rents for 1962 are different, it's called INDEXING FOR INFLATION. If you want to be even more accurate, you can adjust for all of the factors that you listed. It is a valid comparison, regardless of your ducking the question.
According to Ned's argument, nothing can be compared to CC. Property value is different for each area and the size of the plot of land and obstacles that a developer may face is almost always different on each land regardless of the times. In other word, Ned can keep arguing his point since he knows that nobody can prove him wrong. Of course, nobody can prove him right either.

[Ned Flaherty]

Which construction methods are different?

The piles, belled caissons, and slurry wall proposed for use at Columbus Center in 2010-2012 are not the technologies proposed for Hynes Auditorium and Prudential Center in 1962. For details, re-read Columbus Center’s 246 pages of tunnel designs dated 3 February 2006.

. . . And we tried comparing land-to-air before, but you rejected it (The Clarendon, which is as close of an comparison as you can get). . .

No. _ I didn’t reject a land-to-air comparison; in fact, the only valid comparison is land-to-air. _ But a valid comparison has to compare the Columbus Center buildings on air versus the same buildings on land. _ It’s not valid to compare one set of buildings on air versus another set on land, as you wish to do. _ For the air-versus-land comparison to be valid, all factors have to be held constant, except the one being tested (air versus land).

[Ned Flaherty]

According to Ned's argument, nothing can be compared to CC. . .

No, that’s never been my argument. _ The only valid comparison for total development cost on air versus land has to compare the same buildings in air versus the same buildings on land. _ Both buildings can be expensive, moderate, or cheap, but it doesn’t matter which. _ If the same building is included in both the air model and the land model, then the total development cost at each site is easily seen, and the difference easily attributed to the only factor that changes: _ air versus land.

. . . Money and a better economic condition is all this project needs. . .

Columbus Center’s inability to proceed can’t be blamed on the availability of funds, because a very similar proposal just received loans totaling $650 million.

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

[Ned Flaherty]

More bad news for Columbus Center?

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

www.bankerandtradesman.com/issues/5_358/teller/201105-1.html

[JimboJones]

The B&T column is not accurate, or at the very least, misleading; Marty Walz (D-Moonbat) is on record as saying she supports Columbus Center but that she doesn't want it to be built with any public funding.

[KentXie]

No, that’s never been my argument. _ The only valid comparison for total development cost on air versus land has to compare the same buildings in air versus the same buildings on land. _ Both buildings can be expensive, moderate, or cheap, but it doesn’t matter which. _ If the same building is included in both the air model and the land model, then the total development cost at each site is easily seen, and the difference easily attributed to the only factor that changes: _ air versus land.

That's exactly what I said. When is there a place where the same buildings will be built both on land and on the air. Unless it is a twin building that has one being built on land and another built on air rights. That is what your argument basically means.


Columbus Center’s inability to proceed can’t be blamed on the availability of funds, because a very similar proposal just received loans totaling $650 million.

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

Besides the cost and the size of the building, nothing in these two projects are similar. One Franklin did not have to deal with NIMBYs complaining about the height, the block views, shadow, requirement to build a park, ventilation system, ground water drainage and etc. One Franklin is based in the middle of downtown where resistance is less and thus the project does not have to be dragged out nor hold as much public meetings as CC. In other words, it has a lower risk of losing money in this investment.

[pelhamhall]

Wow. That chart comparing an office building downtown to a complicated three-building complex over multiple turnpike parcels is absolutely stunning in its inaccuracy. A silly chart like that might work on the South End activist set, but you have to understand that this board is populated with people who actually work in various facets of commercial real estate development. Your silly little arguments carry no water here - this is the kind of stuff you should stick to South End News to publish.

The approved Columbus Center project is ready to go - ready to be built. It just needs financing. Financing is hard to get right now. All other arguments warrant nothing more than a yawn, a roll of the eyes and a deep sigh.

[TedG]

Besides the cost and the size of the building, nothing in these two projects are similar. One Franklin did not have to deal with NIMBYs complaining about the height, the block views, shadow, requirement to build a park, ventilation system, ground water drainage and etc. One Franklin is based in the middle of downtown where resistance is less and thus the project does not have to be dragged out nor hold as much public meetings as CC. In other words, it has a lower risk of losing money in this investment.


I agree that these two projects have nothing in common.

One Franklin is a financially feasible project with competent deveolopers that can actually get it built, which is why they were able to get financing.

Columbus Center, on the other hand, is a financially un-feasible project with incompetent developers who haven't been able to do anything in 13 years but push some piles of dirt around.

NIMBYism is not a criteria that banks look at when deciding whether or not to lend money to a project. There is no NIMBY question on any loan application I've ever seen.

Numerous forum members have been testifying that the project is "approved" anyway, so NIMBYism is not a valid issue or excuse at this point.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Marty Walz . . . is on record as saying she supports Columbus Center. . .

No, she is not. _ In an exclusive interview dated 14 January 2008, Representative Walz confirmed to Banker & Tradesman, “I did not support approval.” _ That newspaper’s Columbus Center coverage, today and in the past, is accurate.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Walz-1.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Walz-2.jpg

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . When is there a place where the same buildings will be built both on land and on the air. Unless it is a twin building that has one being built on land and another built on air rights. . .

You’ve completely forgotten that the purpose of this discussion is to compare total development cost in air versus on land. _ The same building does not have to actually be built twice, or even once, to do such a comparison. _ The discussion is about comparing total development cost under two scenarios to see the cost difference. _ The fact that the same building wouldn’t be built twice is irrelevant.

. . . One Franklin is based in the middle of downtown where resistance is less and thus the project does not have to be dragged out nor hold as much public meetings . . . In other words, it has a lower risk of losing money in this investment.

No. _ Unpopularity during the public review process never equates to chance for profit or risk of loss during the bank lending stage. _Bankers who are scoring an approved project ignore its popularity prior to the approval. _ They assess risk in order to determine how likely it is that the developer will repay all principal and interest on time, and the project’s value in case they have to repossess it, not how popular the proposal was prior to approval, or how long approval took.

[tobyjug]

I like this thread. It reminds me of the time that Stewie and Bertram had a big war.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . The approved Columbus Center project is ready to go - ready to be built. It just needs financing. Financing is hard to get right now.

No. _ This proposal was never fully approved. _ The latest 3,400-page lease lists 9 approvals obtained, but 27 not obtained. _ The interior plans for the buildings don’t even exist. _ And MTA never approved the initial 2-year construction period for tunnels, because the owners couldn’t provide the $295 million in completion guarantees.

It’s true, the proposal needs financing, estimated at $800 million one year ago, and at least $840 million today because of inflation and the cost of the $110 million already spent.

The fundamental point remains: another luxury skyscraper proposal just borrowed $650 million a few blocks away, so California’s Columbus Center proposal has bigger, deeper problems than mere “availability of funds” — especially since the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC organization has up to $245 billion in assets, but decided last September to spend its money more wisely elsewhere. _ California’s Boston-based managers flew to California in April begging for cash, but came back empty-handed.

So no, the proposal is not ready to be built. _ On the contrary, all it’s ready for is a fire sale.

That’s because the former owners (Winn) ran out of money, the current owners (California) recalled their money, and potential future owners (Beal/Related) are trying to grab it for just pennies on the dollar. _ But Beal/Related can only grab it if someone else pays (loses) all the rest of each dollar.

Who would lose — and how much — and when — and why — has been the subject of sensitive debate that began when the owners defaulted on the lease 2-1/2 years ago. The owners wrote then that the proposal would die without a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies, and they were correct.

Despite Beal’s previous commitments to reveal the prognosis in October, that announcement date has already slipped to January.

[JimboJones]

Ned, you just proved without a doubt what your problem is. You read that article and only saw the part that you wanted to.

Pay attention!

B&T: "You are among the loudest voices in opposition ..."

Walz: "That's not true ... Once the [BRA] approved the project I haven't said a word in opposition to the project itself. I object to the taxpayers subsidizing the profits of a developer."

Wait, have you been operating under mistaken assumptions, THIS ENTIRE TIME????

Marty Walz is NOT against Columbus Center, Ned.

What are you talking about???

[underground]

That article's headline reads like something from the Onion.

[pelhamhall]

At the end of the day... with so many stresses in life with clients, family, major economic issues... I really love reading this particular thread. It's somehow soothing and cathartic in its relentless whimsy.

This silly little complex will get built if the developers (whomever they may be) can get money cheap enough to make a profit.

Or it won't. What's the big argument?

If a bank gives Beal $750M to build the thing, and Beal thinks that's enough to turn a good profit, then it gets built - as-is, as-approved, as it's ready to go.

And if not, then it doesn't get built and the whole thing is put to rest and the site is put out to bid again by the bankrupt MTA and this time we have a feeding frenzy of developers trying to get their hands on it, proposing taller, denser projects, knowing the old proposal was not profitable.

Should be a fun ride.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Marty Walz is NOT against Columbus Center, Ned. What are you talking about???

Calm down, and re-read. When you incorrectly wrote, “Walz . . . is on record as saying she supports Columbus Center. . .” I merely posted her interview proving the opposite._ When the interviewer asked her, “You are among the loudest voices in opposition. . .?” Rep. Walz replied, “That’s not true.”

Today’s article says, “House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, state Rep. Martha Walz and state Rep. Byron Rushing, the rest of the delegation who represent the downtown district in the legislature, have steadfastly opposed public financing for Columbus Center.”_ And that is correct.

Walz:
(1) criticized the proposal prior to its approval in 2003;
(2) has never opposed the proposal since it was approved; and
(3) has always opposed public subsidies for it.

I never said Walz was “against” Columbus Center, as you think I did._ I did write that Walz “doesn’t support” it, which she doesn’t._ The world is not the black-versus-white, oppose-or-support place that you imagine it to be; there are many more thoughtful positions than merely “oppose” and “support”.

Rep. Walz, her colleagues, and their constituents are an excellent example:_ collectively, they support air rights development across the city, including parcels 16-17-18-19, and they also oppose subsidizing the Columbus Center proposal._ That’s because the owners promised — verbally, in writing, and in the Boston Globe — that their proposal was subsidy-free, but then after it was approved sought 15 subsidies totaling $222 million.

Such bait-and-switch tactics are opposed by everyone, except perhaps your forum colleagues who are — or hope to be — on the development industry gravy train at everyone else’s expense._ Take, for example, DarkFenX, who wrote in post 983 on 9 May, “I don’t care whether the Columbus Center developers lied or not, people should have seen it coming.”

[sidewalks]

By confusing “building” with “total development”, you’ve repeated the fundamental mistake that keeps reappearing — surprisingly — on a forum where people are supposed to know better.

You wrote, “building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land” but I never said that.

“Construction cost” is not the same as “total development cost”. _ “Construction cost” is only one of many factors that comprise “total development cost”. _ Public records and the developers’ own numbers together show that this proposal’s “total development cost” is less in air than it would be on land.

Ned...I felt the need to dig through this god-forsaken stack of misanthropic postings simply because I find your postings to be so bloody condescending.

You did, in fact, state that air rights construction costs are EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN land based construction costs.

Here's your original post:

Q-26. Is there a “deck cost premium”?
A-26. No. The Master Plan does allow excess density as a way to pay for only those tunnel / deck / basement costs that exceed the equivalent land-based costs; however, no such premium was ever proved. With air rights construction costing equal to or less than land-based construction, there is no “deck cost premium” that could justify excess density.

[sidewalks]

As is your custom, you have misrepresented both the issue and what you have stated in the past. In the most recent posts you have made great effort to assert that you have stated that Total Development Costs are equal on land and over the highway...but that equivalence exists only because a sweetheart deal was given to the developer on the land acquistion. That argument may very well be true. But that isn't what you've asserted for these past several years. You've steadfastly contended that CONSTRUCTION costs are either equal or less for air rights construction. More recently you seem to have seen the absurd and erroneous basis of this notion. As a result you've decided to rewrite your own position and chide those who point out the problem with your original thesis as misguided and misinformed.

The following is another post of yours from March of this year, in which you reassert your contention about construction costs:

7. Construction cost over air and land are equivalent. • There’s no significant difference in air rights versus land-based construction cost. Before the Columbus Center public hearings got underway, a Sverdup/Parsons Brinckerhoff engineering team studied this, and concluded that the “premium cost” is nominal, if it even exists at all. Consult their analysis, “Air Rights Cost Study Parcels 16 and 17” (May, 2001).
_____California’s Columbus Center invented and promoted the “premium cost” notion as a scheme to pay less rent.
_____All forum members who mentioned deck costs had incorrect numbers. As of 29 February 2008, the completion guarantee negotiated between MTA and California for the tunnel walls, ceilings, air shafts, and roof is $279,461,484.

[KentXie]

You’ve completely forgotten that the purpose of this discussion is to compare total development cost in air versus on land. _ The same building does not have to actually be built twice, or even once, to do such a comparison. _ The discussion is about comparing total development cost under two scenarios to see the cost difference. _ The fact that the same building wouldn’t be built twice is irrelevant.
The fact is, the two different scenarios does not exist since there are no two identical or near identical project. There are no study conducted to show exactly how much one building would cost over an air right, especially one as complex as CC, compared to how much the same building would cost to be built on land. Thus as I stated before, no one can really prove you wrong nor can anyone prove you right either.


No. _ Unpopularity during the public review process never equates to chance for profit or risk of loss during the bank lending stage. _Bankers who are scoring an approved project ignore its popularity prior to the approval. _ They assess risk in order to determine how likely it is that the developer will repay all principal and interest on time, and the project’s value in case they have to repossess it, not how popular the proposal was prior to approval, or how long approval took.

You are so wrong in so many ways. Yes, actually the effects of NIMBYs do effect the risk of a tower. Let's take a look at Boston's history with this. In fact CC is a good example. I believe CC when it was first propose was actually taller than it is proposed now but due to community opposition, the building had to shave off a few stories which leads to a smaller revenue. If strong enough, the project can be entirely withdrawn such as the example of the Boylston tower which had its height shaved from 650-550ft then canceled entirely. Shadow also play a role. Look at the Copley Tower being proposed. Although the design didn't change as the developers decided to rotate it to minimize the amount of shadow, had it been a more stout of a project, chances are, the project will have to make it skinnier and thus lose out on space/revenue. Hell even Russia Wharf, although not from the usual residential NIMBYs, had their project stall due to it's neighbor the 500 Atlantic Ave due to views being blocked. And I'm not just talking about mainly just the bankers but the developers themselves that have to pay for the property.

[bosdevelopment]

Ned do us all a favor and please shut the fuck up.




That is all.

[nova617]

Hey everybody. I just joined the forum and this is my first post! I've been following the threads for months and admire the enthusiasm and civility that most people show here. However, although I couldn't agree more with you, bosdevelopment, you're only playing into Ned's hands. Clearly, he is an arch-NIMBY (forgive the accidental pun)...someone with enough time on his hands to choose a clearly pro-development forum and to try and irritate members is NOT worth it. That being said, I would LOVE to see this thing get built. The location (at the awkward intersection of BB and SE, above an ugly highway and in an area that is ALREADY A HIGH-RISE DISTRICT) is ideal for such a project. While nowhere NEAR 'skyscraper status,' I feel like it would visually help to knit the fabric of the city together...from aerial photos, so much of the city feels stupidly chopped up (by the MASS PIKE/GOVT CENTER, etc.) Kind of a random interjection to a years-old thread haha, but what do people think?

[Patriots_1228]

i agree. however, people would rather bitch about cancerous fumes or somthing...

[nova617]

yes, ned's points about CC's developers' obligation to filter the air vented from the Pike really amused me.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . you have stated that Total Development Costs are equal on land and over the highway . . .

No. _ This project’s total-development-cost isn’t equal both in air and on land; it is less in air, confirmed by the arithmetic in the public records.

. . . only because a sweetheart deal was given to the developer on the land acquisition. That argument may very well be true.

Yes, it is true that the total-development-cost is less, but not only because of the below-market-value property cost; it’s less because of the total of all costs — less all savings — in both scenarios — confirmed by the arithmetic in the public records.

. . . you've asserted for these past several years. . .

No. _ I first joined this forum in August 2007, and first raised total development cost in August 2008.

. . . You've steadfastly contended that CONSTRUCTION costs are either equal or less for air rights construction.

No. _ One year ago, I first mentioned the conclusion reported by MTA’s own engineers, Sverdup/Parsons Brinckerhoff, who found that the developers’ “deck-premium” (the increased cost in air versus on land), if it exists at all, is too nominal to bother considering.

That was S/PB’s conclusion, they never retracted it, and I reported it.

One year later, Wocket asked for details about how the total-development-cost for a 30-story building over a transportation corridor could be less than the total-development-cost for the same project on vacant land. _ I replied the same day, in message 1278 on 21 August 2008.

The deck-premium cost issue introduced in August 2007 was about a cost study by MTA engineers; the total-development-cost issue introduced in August 2008 was a cost comparison using the arithmetic in the public records.

The issues are different; the deck-premium notion is only one element in the total-development-cost equation. _ But S/PB’s May, 2001 deck-premium conclusion remains unchanged, and the public records data used in my August, 2008 total-development-cost comparison also remain unchanged.

When I joined the forum or when I first raised the two issues is irrelevant; the data themselves remain the same, as do the conclusions.

This proposal’s total-development-cost is less in air than on land. _ If someone else has all the data from this proposal, and can present another reasonable point of view using that data, it might be interesting. _ Until then, the data so far stand on their own, unaffected by name-calling or obscenities.

[kmp1284]

Ned, nobody cares anymore. Just give it a rest.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . the two different scenarios does not exist since there are no two identical or near identical project.

No. _ A scenario is conceptual. _ Even when a scenario is not yet built in the physical world, the scenario still exists. _ It is a concept. _ Performing the comparison requires only the concept. _ The buildings do not have to be built to perform the comparison.

. . . There are no study conducted to show exactly how much one building would cost over an air right, especially one as complex as CC, compared to how much the same building would cost to be built on land.

No. _ Multiple studies were performed. _ Those studies exist. _ If — at this late date — you still do not have the public records for this proposal, and you still are not willing to pull the pages you need to participate in this discussion, then it will be difficult for you to contribute anything useful.

. . . CC when it was first propose was actually taller than it is proposed now but due to community opposition, the building had to shave off a few stories which leads to a smaller revenue.

No. _ Re-read the public records.

The Environmental Notification Form, dated 30 November 2001 (on page 4 of 56), proposed 29 stories. _ The 99-year lease, signed 2 May 2006 (on page 29 of 3,400), is for 35 stories. _ The proposal grew by 6 floors, and by the time the lease was signed, the square footage more than doubled, from 713,000 to 1,490,800.

Community opposition, objections from city staff, and threats from elected officials had no impact, because the development team owned the majority of seats on the review panel. _ The 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer voted in favor; the 4 democratically nominated members voted in opposition.

[sidewalks]

Ned,

Say "No" say "that's not true" as much as you like...your own words contradict you.

[InTheHood]

Ned, I'll try to put this in as polite and constructive a manner possible, but I think you could be spending your time more wisely to better achieve your goals.

With respect to the construction costs, there's not a reputable civil engineer in the world who would contend that building a deck over an active highway wouldn't add markedly to project costs. Indeed, you'll note that most of the large structures in both the CC and Rosenthal proposals are rooted on terra firma, and for good reason. It's not an either/or ... an air-rights developer has to do BOTH decks AND excavation. If air rights posed no additional costs, huge tracts over the Eisenhower in Chicago and the FDR Drive in NYC and I-5 through Seattle would have been decked years ago, never mind the local examples. You've quoted some text out of context. I'm not sure what purpose this serves. Clearly you aren't converting anyone here, and these posts make civil engineers giggle.

With respect to project ownership, you seem to see a conspiracy theory in a structure that someone involved in large commercial real estate development wouldn't find unusual. When you substitute "California" for CalPERS, and when you seem to confuse the role of general partners and limited partners ... well, that doesn't convert any readers, either, and these posts make even 23-year-old employees of Putnam or Fidelity giggle.

With respect to economics, where to start? You cite cost and revenue projections from years ago as if they came down on stone tablets; you don't seem to acknowledge the relationship between risk and return and in turn the relationship between returns and both the debt and the tiers of ownership; you don't seem to understand the implications of the market developments of the last 3 years, never mind the last 3 weeks. Development on this scale is a high risk / high reward endeavor, it can't be evaluated like a T-bill. I'm sure that somewhere, Winn-Cassin once had a model that showed them earning a 30%-plus return on the project, and you can bet that Beal-Related won't touch it until/unless they can do the same. After approval, steel costs went through the roof, the condo market flattened (and subsequently collapsed), other nearby projects were started, debt financing tightened, and the developers started fishing for handouts. It's perfectly rational to argue that the public shouldn't subsidize CC, but to suggest that the delay is all the result of a big swindle or incompetence by developers who would have earned windfall returns based on the disparate data you've pulled from several different five year old documents ... well, that's silly. It's even more exasperating when the changes you seem to want in the CC proposal all either ADD costs or SUBTRACT revenue. These posts don't convert anyone, and they make real estate professionals giggle.

Look, you seem an intelligent fellow. And clearly you have plenty of passion and time. But your content makes it clear that you are new to many of these subjects, and suggests too much time in the library with the documents and little contact with people who understand how these pieces fit together. So here's a suggestion ... audit an MBA real estate course. Spend some time with developers and civil engineers and architects (sadly, many have a lot of time on their hands right now). Chase down someone at Cummins or Detroit Diesel or CARB and have them explain the regulation of UFPs. Spend less time reading about Columbus Center and posting on this board, and more time learning from professionals in related fields. Your arguments will be much more persuasive, and you'll generate far fewer unconstructive responses.

I'm sure that sounds like lecturing, Ned, but frankly, so do your posts. Too often they read like an essay on Beethoven by someone who has methodically collected all of the sheet music but never met a musician or heard a note.

[KentXie]

No. _ A scenario is conceptual. _ Even when a scenario is not yet built in the physical world, the scenario still exists. _ It is a concept. _ Performing the comparison requires only the concept. _ The buildings do not have to be built to perform the comparison.
Yes it exist in a concept but the scenario does not realistically exist in the world so a study is required to simulate it. I have not heard or see any simulation of this.


No. _ Multiple studies were performed. _ Those studies exist. _ If — at this late date — you still do not have the public records for this proposal, and you still are not willing to pull the pages you need to participate in this discussion, then it will be difficult for you to contribute anything useful.

You did not provide any of the studies of the cost differentiation between CC on land and CC on air as proof, thus your participation in this discussion will continue to be taken lightly. If the studies existed, you could have proven it to the board that it would be cheaper to build CC on land than on air then and there and they would have been no debate on this issue.

No. _ Re-read the public records.

The Environmental Notification Form, dated 30 November 2001 (on page 4 of 56), proposed 29 stories. _ The 99-year lease, signed 2 May 2006 (on page 29 of 3,400), is for 35 stories. _ The proposal grew by 6 floors, and by the time the lease was signed, the square footage more than doubled, from 713,000 to 1,490,800.

Community opposition, objections from city staff, and threats from elected officials had no impact, because the development team owned the majority of seats on the review panel. _ The 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer voted in favor; the 4 democratically nominated members voted in opposition.
You fail to provide counter-statements for my other examples. You only prove me wrong on whether CC was bigger earlier or not, but not how the community failed to affect it. Thus you failed to argue my point and and once again continued to avoid answering the question.

[bosdevelopment]

Ned, posting on this board will have no outcome on [when] and [what] gets built. In the end you will lose and you will be miserable, no doubt. Whatever your interest is, financial or otherwise, I can't over stress that posting here will accomplish nothing.

[chumbolly]

^InTheHood, very well put, sir. I think you eloquently summarized the various, significantly more profane, reactions I've had to Mr. Flaherty's posts.

[Ned Flaherty]

Frustration is only thing rising, it seems

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

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/04/frustration_is_only_thing_rising_it_seems/?page=1

[Ned Flaherty]

Thanks, InTheHood, for your refreshingly polite thoughts._ Had you caught some earlier posts, though, you might have written otherwise, because the assumptions you bring from other projects don’t apply here, for example:

. . . With respect to the construction costs, there's not a reputable civil engineer in the world who would contend that building a deck over an active highway wouldn't add markedly to project costs.

As always, my point was never with respect to “construction” cost._ It has always been about total-development-cost._ Even developers who hadn’t pulled the public records fell for the myth of the so-called “deck premium”._ Yes, adding tunnels adds cost, but in this project, the added tunnels also added a property discount and other savings, which yielded a total-development-cost that is lower than if the same result were accomplished on terra firma._ It is the total-development-cost that is lower, not the construction cost._ (Re-read post #1278 on 21 August 2008.)

. . . you seem to confuse the role of general partners and limited partners . . .

No, not at all; I do understand the different roles of general and limited partners._ But the multiple LLC agreements and the 3,400-page lease are clear:_ the relationship between current owner CalPERS-CUIP-MURC and former owner Winn has neither general partners nor limited partners. _ (Re-read post #746 on 15 April 2008).

. . . You cite cost and revenue projections from years ago as if they came down on stone tablets . . .

No, not at all._ I cited figures that the developers previously swore to, but only to illustrate that, regardless of when in the 13-year cycle they claimed various figures, none of their numbers ever matched up._ I have never argued that the developers’ numbers are correct, only that they did not hold up in the scenarios in which they were depicted._ Even the numbers that CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC swore to just last year — under pains and penalties of perjury — did not work.

The owners claimed to have investor funds, bank loans, and public subsidies that never materialized._ In particular, the bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The owners depicted high profit in their loan applications but little or no profit in their subsidy applications, which is not possible._ Both portrayals can’t be true.

. . . you don't seem to acknowledge the relationship between risk and return . . . the relationship between returns and both the debt and the tiers of ownership . . .the implications of the market developments of the last 3 years, never mind the last 3 weeks . . .

No, I do recognize all those relationships. _ But none of them change two overarching facts:
• For 13 years, the owners always said they were “ready to proceed”.
• For 13 years — even in frothy economies — every lender turned them down.

Having reviewed the public records, the lenders knew everything that forum members didn’t._ The lenders consistently refused to fund a proposal which some forum members keep cheering as if it were a sports team.

. . . After approval, steel costs went through the roof, the condo market flattened (and subsequently collapsed), other nearby projects were started, debt financing tightened, and the developers started fishing for handouts . . .

You incorrectly assume that subsidies were sought only because of rising costs and changing economies._ But that’s untrue._ From the outset in 1996, the owners’ business plan was to propose the project as subsidy-free, get it approved as subsidy-free, and then quietly get subsidies to pay their costs and profits (re-read post #500 on 1 April 2008).

. . . It's perfectly rational to argue that the public shouldn't subsidize CC, but to suggest that the delay is all the result of a big swindle or incompetence by developers who would have earned windfall returns based on the disparate data you've pulled from several different five year old documents ... well, that's silly.

No, it’s not silly at all._ Here’s why. _ The owners wrote their own pro formas, and filed them with city, state, and federal agencies, under pains and penalties of perjury._ It was entirely their own doing that their numbers never matched up — in any of the 13 years.

The project’s paralysis results from a swindle (using public money to pay for a 100% private project) that citizens discovered, and that elected officials halted._ Had that public subsidy juggernaut succeeded, capital would have been available, banks would have loaned, tunnels and buildings would have been built, private profits would have come in, and the public would have paid for it.

But most of the public subsidy dollars were ultimately denied, suspended, withdrawn, or otherwise not issued._ It is because of the project’s collective capital shortage that:
• lenders will not lend;
• current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) won’t release their funds;
• former owners (Winn) ran out of cash;
• MTA demanded $294,461,484 in unconditional, irrevocable completion guarantees;
• MTA refused to allow tunnel construction to start; and
• the proposal remains un-built.

. . . the changes you seem to want in the CC proposal all either ADD costs or SUBTRACT revenue . . .

No, they would add no cost at all, and value and revenue would increase, not decrease._ Here’s why._ The MTA policy has always been to charge fair market value for the property, adjusted downward for any extraordinary requirements that get imposed._ So if the 2-acre contiguous public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan were provided, and if the toxic air that the proposed project would vent into its own buildings and the surrounding communities were instead filtered and made safe, then the MTA would subtract such costs from the property cost, leaving the developers with no extra cost, but a safer and more attractive end product._ (Re-read post #935 on 6 May 2008.)

. . . you are new to many of these subjects . . . Spend some time with developers and civil engineers and architects . . . or CARB . . .

No, I’m not new to these topics._ I’ve met with developers, engineers, architects, environmental scientists, physicians, lawyers, and others professionals to test both the information in the public records, and the resulting conclusions._ Unlike some forum members who just log in, read only the latest message, blurt an un-researched opinion, and then leave, I validated each conclusion with knowledgeable people before posting it.

. . . you could be spending your time more wisely to better achieve your goals.

My goal is getting met._ Most forum messages in 2006-2007 were peppered with “I imagine”, “I heard”, “as far as I know”, “someone told me”, “probably”, “usually”, “it seems”, etcetera._ Since so many members were posting beliefs from other projects instead of facts from this one, I joined and posted what I had already researched, so members could react to information that they hadn’t yet seen._ Some members understand the issues I raise; others insist on disagreeing but refuse to pull the data for themselves, so their arguments continue — unchanged and uninformed._ But my goal — hearing forum members’ reactions to what the public records show — is getting met.

The other venues in which I operate are more receptive to what the public records show, and what that data means._ But despite this forum’s frequent name-calling and intermittent profanity (which were predicted the day I joined), some of the reactions here are still well worth collecting.

In January, the future owners (Beal/Related) will announce what conditions they insist upon in order to purchase the proposal from the former owners (Winn) and the current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC)._ Absent some other news in the interim, it seems unlikely that there will be much else to discuss until then.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Why are you wasting your time here? None of us have much clout in the real world. Calling the BRA every day with your facts would be a better use of your time, since they can actually stop the project, unlike us. So changing the opinions of a very small group of people WHO DON'T HAVE ANY POWER OVER THE PROJECT seems to be a huge waste of your time, especially when you can change the opinions of the BRA and neighbors by calling them and staging rallies. Please, find a more receptive group to persaude, preferably one that actually has real power.

[Patriots_1228]

Columbus Day, Columbus Center....

weird.

[kmp1284]

Somebody with some time on their hands really ought to put together a list of Ned's contradictions and lies and send it to the Globe, Herald, etc. There's no reason for our papers and local minds to be further polluted with his rhetoric. Perhaps if they know what kind of bullsh-t artist he is, he will stop getting press and maybe, just maybe, he'll shut up and find a way to truly enjoy his life.

[KentXie]

In fact CC is a good example. I believe CC when it was first propose was actually taller than it is proposed now but due to community opposition, the building had to shave off a few stories which leads to a smaller revenue.

No. _ Re-read the public records.

The Environmental Notification Form, dated 30 November 2001 (on page 4 of 56), proposed 29 stories. _ The 99-year lease, signed 2 May 2006 (on page 29 of 3,400), is for 35 stories. _ The proposal grew by 6 floors, and by the time the lease was signed, the square footage more than doubled, from 713,000 to 1,490,800.

Community opposition, objections from city staff, and threats from elected officials had no impact, because the development team owned the majority of seats on the review panel. _ The 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer voted in favor; the 4 democratically nominated members voted in opposition.

SOUTH END PROJECT REVISED
Boston globe
Author(s): Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff Date: November 22, 2002 Page: E3 Section: Business
The South End last night got a look at the latest shape of the Columbus Center mixed-use project that has grown several stories taller at the request of community residents.

Developers Roger Cassin and Arthur Winn of Columbus Center Associates unveiled a 35-story hotel and condominium tower, adjacent to a 14-floor residential building and park, to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike between Clarendon and Berkeley streets. A parking garage framed on three sides by townhouses and apartments would complete the project in its latest proposed form, extending to Arlington Street.

Building on Turnpike air rights but overseen by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the developers have spent almost two years working with a Community Advisory Council on the shape of the buildings, economic uses, and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.

In an unforeseen twist, a majority of the community group wanted more height in the tower at the Clarendon end, because it helped allow for lower height and less impact for other parcels.

"Ninety-five percent of the people were pleased with the presentation," said Donovan Walker, who operates the Showdown Youth Development Inc. program, located near the project site. "There are still some people with their own doubts."

Originally planned for only two parcels, the project grew to three several months ago, when the community supported a low-rise parking garage on a third space over the Turnpike. That expansion not only helped scale down the other two buildings but covered up yet another gash through the city, the depressed Turnpike roadway between Berkeley and Arlington streets.

Cassin and Winn pledged to build only as much as they needed to make the project economically feasible, and they have shared their financial analyses with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, city, and community. The authority is contributing the cost of concrete platforms required to build over an open roadway.

Even in a city renowned for difficult gestation periods for new buildings, Columbus Center stands out. Its draft environmental impact report, presented yesterday, marked the fourth major design or redesign since the proposal - for 38-floor and 33-floor towers - was filed in March 2001.

PROJECT OVER PIKE TO BE LOWER AND WIDER
Boston Globe
Author(s): Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff Date: July 9, 2002 Page: D1 Section: Business
Having cleared two big obstacles - a clouded land purchase and protests from neighborhood activists - the developers who plan to build Columbus Center over the turnpike are moving forward this week with a project that's almost as big as they first envisioned.

The profile of the $400 million mixed-use project between the Back Bay and the South End has been reduced, though. Originally, it was to include a 38-story tower; that has been scaled back to 29 floors. And the development would cover not two blocks over the Massachusetts Turnpike, but three, from Arlington Street to Clarendon Street.

Columbus Center Associates plans to formally notify the Boston Redevelopment Authority of the changes on Thursday.

Most of the winnowing down and spreading out of the project was done late last year, after neighborhood groups booed the early plans for a 38-floor tower.

The Citizens Advisory Council was instrumental in persuading the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow the developers to spread the project over three air-rights parcels, not two, and to separate a garage from the heart of the complex.

"I was really pleased with the idea that came out of that whole discussion of relocating parking onto a structure over the highway," the turnpike's chief development officer, Stephen J. Hines, said yesterday. "That really helped make the thing work pretty much from every perspective - and helps make it work financially." But another hurdle appeared this year.

Columbus Center's development partners, Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin, had purchased a small parking lot near the Hard Rock Cafe, to be included in the complex. But a title search found that a portion of that land was owned by John Hancock Financial Services.

Negotiations over the developer's attempt to buy the small lot collapsed this year, and Hancock announced it would sell the piece of land only as part of a package of real estate in the area.

"They finally gave me what I wanted, which was a definitive answer," Cassin said recently. "I would have preferred `yes,' but `no' was second best."

The architects, CBT Childs Bertman Tseckares Inc., are now designing a hotel entrance and parking around Hancock's land, and that is what city and turnpike officials will see on Thursday, when the developers update the plans they had filed. The developers hope to begin work in mid-2003 and finish three years later.

About five years ago, the Turnpike Authority chose Winn and Cassin to develop two parcels over the highway, between Berkeley and Clarendon, along Columbus Avenue.

But the 38-floor hotel, condominiums, and apartment complex they were planning met with immediate opposition. It was just too big, many neighbors said...


Oh wait a minute. I guess I wasn't wrong about CC as a tower and a complex being shrunken in size. The original proposal was for a 38-story and a 33 story tower that, in a second proposal due to public outcry, did one of the tower shrunk in height to 29 stories. Even though Ned said that the tower then grew 6 more floors, it was still 3 floors less than the original proposal and the second tower dropped by 19 floors to 14 stories. So Ned, the holes in your explanations are starting to show up. As hard as it is going to be for you to understand this, but Ned, you were WRONG! Get your fact straight or we will continue to take your posts with little substance.

[Ned Flaherty]

DarkFenX, you’re excited because you’ve confused at least 8 sources of different numbers over 10 years, including a reporter who made several mistakes in each story because he didn't even fact-check the public records.

■ Exclusivity Agreement (31 January 1997)
■ preliminary description (9 March 2001)
■ Environmental Notification Form #2 (30 November 2001)
■ newspaper story (9 July 2002)
■ Draft Project Impact Report (21 November 2002)
■ newspaper story (22 November 2002)
■ Final Project Impact Report (15 May 2003)
■ Lease (02 May 2006)

If you’re interested, you can watch all the dimensions shrink and expand to your heart’s content in lots of additional documents among the 15,000 pages of public records over 13 years.

But 2 facts remain:

● The data and the sources I reported in post #1474 were 100% accurate.
● From the 1997 initial MTA contract — for 713,000 s.f. — to the 2006 MTA lease — for 1,490,800 s.f., — the project grew 209%.

[atlrvr]

...

In particular, the bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The owners depicted high profit in their loan applications but little or no profit in their subsidy applications, which is not possible.
...



I stopped reading at this point. To post numerous misleading diatribes is one thing, but to contradict yourself in two consecutive sentences....well....it's ironic.

[tobyjug]

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/tobyjug_2008/pumpkin.jpg

[Beton Brut]

Mexican, Canadian, and Dutch beer is indeed a volatile combination.

[Ned Flaherty]

I stopped reading at this point . . . to contradict yourself in two consecutive sentences....well....it's ironic.

There’s no irony, no contradiction, and no need to stop reading._ Just re-read._ (Or, for those who forgot prior posts on this topic, and never pulled the public records, then just read for the first time.)_ In any event . . .

Since you wrote in post #742 on 15 April 2008 that you are employed by an equity investor and do “dozens of deals a year”, you already know that Columbus Center’s owners sought loans from three kinds of sources:
● private investors;
● commercial banks; and
● public subsidies.

The bank loans that they claimed in their public subsidy applications — signed under pains and penalties of perjury — were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The government loans that they sought through public subsidy programs claimed high profit in the loan applications._ To be clear:_ it was the bank loan applications that never existed, and the government loan applications that claimed high profit._ So there’s no contradiction in what I reported.

There are two great ironies, though.
● The Winn prospectus to the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC organization never produced the California investor equity loans that Winn claimed it did.
● The CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC proposal to Massachusetts government was found un-finance-able by real-world bankers.

[atlrvr]

You can talk in circles all you want, but compare your 2 quotes.


The owners claimed to have investor funds, bank loans, and public subsidies that never materialized._ In particular, the bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The owners depicted high profit in their loan applications but little or no profit in their subsidy applications, which is not possible._ Both portrayals can’t be true.


There’s no irony, no contradiction, and no need to stop The bank loans that they claimed in their public subsidy applications — signed under pains and penalties of perjury — were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The government loans that they sought through public subsidy programs claimed high profit in the loan applications._ To be clear:_ it was the bank loan applications that never existed, and the government loan applications that claimed high profit._ So there’s no contradiction in what I reported.

[Ned Flaherty]

You can talk in circles all you want, but compare your 2 quotes.

Glad to!_ Boston’s longest-running urban planning failure does get confusing, especially to everyone who hasn’t pulled 13 years and 15,000 pages of public records on it, but this one’s easily explained:

Columbus Center sought at least 13 types of public subsidies, all of which fall into two broad categories:_ government-subsidized loans repaid within 50 years, and outright give-aways never repaid at all:
• property discounts;
• property tax breaks;
• tax-free bond loans;
• low-interest construction loans;
• luxury housing grants;
• state income tax breaks;
• utility grants;
• work tax credits;
• equipment write-offs;
• wage tax credits;
• energy grants;
• community development tax credits; and
• economic stimulus grants.

On the subsidized loan applications, the developers claimed high profit so they could qualify for money from agencies responsible for lending (and retrieving) government funds._ But on the outright give-away applications, the developers claimed little or no profit so they could qualify for money from agencies responsible for giving away government funds to help the poor.

For the loans, the developers had to appear profitable; for the give-aways, they had to appear poor._ So they did both._ No government agency compared all of their applications side by side, so the bureaucrats never noticed the scam.

This is precisely why government-sponsored projects need public audits of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies per the Commonwealth’s GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards).

Most of these subsidy programs are some form of “anti-poverty” initiative._ The developers correctly dubbed Columbus Center as “Boston’s answer to Rodeo Drive [Beverly Hills] and Fifth Avenue [New York City]”, but falsely obtaining government anti-poverty funds to build Taj Mahals is criminal.

[ablarc]

This thread is immortal.

[pelhamhall]

I love this thread, it's so... whimsical.

[statler]

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/This-Thread-Delivers/1/thread-delivers.jpg

Just when you think it has died a nice quite death, some little speck of information comes out and the whole circle jerk starts all over again.

It would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[Patriots_1228]

"circle jerk". When people start calling a forum thread a circle jerk
Thats like the 91st degree of Fail for said thread.

[nm88]

It takes two to tango. Stop tangoing. Or stop complaining.

[kz1000ps]

I say keep it going -- that way Statler has a reason to post more funny images ;)

[Ned Flaherty]

MTA Offers Few Answers
(Boston Courant, 25 October 2008)

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

[palindrome]

steel prices are dropping.