Columbus Center: RIP

[TetOff]

Ned Flaherty, post #1990 (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=82981&postcount=1990):
Firstly, no foundation work ever started, because the developers never got permission to build either the tunnels or the buildings.
Ned Flaherty, previous post (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=83101&postcount=2001):
This last piece of rusted steel foundation will be demolished by state equipment...
At this pace, you'll be arguing both sides of issues in consecutive posts. It is, however, remarkable that: though you assured us no foundation work has been started, you also promise us that the last of it is now being removed. Rest assured, we treat all your musings with a similar level of credulity.

[BarbaricManchurian]

• You’re still unsure (above) as to whether getting and reading these records take a “little” or a “long” time._ Just do the first 1,000 pages, and you will see.

I said that your diatribes against personal opponents on this forum have obviously took a long time to write, with you tracking every post on this thread and using proper grammar and such. Since you have taken such a long time already posting here, it only takes a little extra time to do the small favor I am requesting so that I can learn!

• If you’re sure you can do all this without staffing, funding, and facilities, then prove it, and just do it._ (Hint: your refusal to measure resources for your own proposed project mirrors your refusal to measure total development cost at the proposed Columbus Center, so your project is likely to end the same way.)

I don't have the public records, so obviously I can't do it. You have them, so you can use something kids these days call a "scanner" and upload them onto any of the sites I repeatedly told you. That requires no extra resources besides the ones you already have, it simply requires some time, something that you obviously have a lot of.

Also, please don't avoid this question:

So that means no one else along the I-90 corridor is interested enough to file a lawsuit about UFPs (plus why haven't you, already)? That's awfully presumptuous, even by you. Fact is, if you cared about the health of yourself and others, you should educate as many residents of your neighborhood about UFPs and try to encourage them to relocate to an area with a lower concentration of UFPs. Either that, or try to start a class-action lawsuit forcing someone to fix the problem so thousands don't have to die just because of the government's negligence (I can sense a huge news story/scandal if it were all true).

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . you assured us no foundation work has been started . . .

I quoted lawyers for the developer and the Turnpike, who carefully specified that there was not any actual “foundation work” but only “site preparation and pre-construction activity” (because permission to build the tunnels that form the foundation of the project was never granted).

. . . you also promise us that the last of it is now being removed. . .

No. I “promised” nothing at all. I quoted a newspaper, where anything stuck in the ground is considered “foundation.” The developers did try to start some of the foundation that they were not permitted to build, so the newspaper reported correctly.

Ideally, the editor would have used the occasion of publishing this photo to disclose some of the more interesting history:

• why permission to start tunnels was never granted;
• why tunnel design quality control approvals were never issued;
• why former owners spent their own money from October 2007 through March 2008;
• why current owners, subsidies, and banks paid for none of that work;
• why 6 months of “site preparation and pre-construction activity” accomplished nothing.

Future coverage might go into these angles.

[KentXie]

Looks like foundation to me. I mean why else would they stick the steel into the ground? Legal or not, the purpose of the steel is to set the foundation and that's what it is IMO.

[tobyjug]

Ned's picture would look good in that Hancock photo thread.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Looks like foundation to me. . . Legal or not, the purpose of the steel is to set the foundation and that's what it is IMO.

The developer’s and Turnpike’s lawyers still insist that no foundation started, because the tunnel designs weren’t approved, the performance bonds weren’t bought, the lease wasn’t amended, and tunnel construction wasn’t permitted.

But, yes, the steel appears to be a start of a foundation.

So it seems that some of the work done October 2007 - March 2008 was illicit.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . it only takes a little extra time to do the small favor I am requesting so that I can learn! . . .

No._ You’re either insincere, or else ignorant of the resources required to obtain, authenticate, organize, scan, index, and store 16,000 government pages created over a 14-year period in any useful fashion._ Most likely (based on recent messages), you are both insincere and ignorant._ In any case, you’ll learn nothing by having others do your proposed project for you._ No one else at ArchBoston.org sees any value in it, and no one has offered to help you._ So either do it yourself, or give it up._ Either way, stop asking others to it for you.

[JohnAKeith]

Ned, step away from that box of wine!!

[SeamusMcFly]

Ned's picture would look good in that Hancock photo thread.

Pretty good Clarendon shot too. Look at you Ned. While fighting your windmill you could also be contributing considerably to other threads. 2 birds killed with one stone, or we could just wait for the UFP's to kill them....

[SeamusMcFly]

No._ You’re either insincere, or else ignorant of the resources required to obtain, authenticate, organize, scan, index, and store 16,000 government pages created over a 14-year period in any useful fashion._ Most likely (based on recent messages), you are both insincere and ignorant._ In any case, you’ll learn nothing by having others do your proposed project for you._ No one else at ArchBoston.org sees any value in it, and no one has offered to help you._ So either do it yourself, or give it up._ Either way, stop asking others to it for you.

That's called being a manager, or being Homer Simpson Garbage czar "Can't somebody else do it?"

Actually scanning multiple documents in an office environment has gotten to be as easy as operating a copy machine. They will now feed and scan as quickly as making copies. How about you send me a USPS package of the report. I'll pay for the postage. I have a large copier scanner, and get in early every day. Together we can make this happen.

I don't really want to read 16,000 pages, but I'm also sick of hearing about it and being told to read it. I'm sure many here would like to at least be able to peruse it and verify some of the facts that you state. I don't think we doubt them, but we cannot corroborate the information.

[BarbaricManchurian]

No._ You’re either insincere, or else ignorant of the resources required to obtain, authenticate, organize, scan, index, and store 16,000 government pages created over a 14-year period in any useful fashion._ Most likely (based on recent messages), you are both insincere and ignorant._ In any case, you’ll learn nothing by having others do your proposed project for you._ No one else at ArchBoston.org sees any value in it, and no one has offered to help you._ So either do it yourself, or give it up._ Either way, stop asking others to it for you.

I can't do it myself, as I don't have the public records. How many times do I have to drill this into your thick head?

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Actually scanning multiple documents in an office environment has gotten to be as easy as operating a copy machine . . . I have a large copier scanner, and get in early every day. Together we can make this happen . . .

Scope and scale • Yes, but don’t lose sight of the entire project that you are proposing.

1. Obtain 16,000 original pages from government custodians and authors.
2. Build a search-able index of the 16,000 pages by date, author, title, and contents.
3. Add the title, author, date, and new logical page number to each page.
4. Scan each page.
5. Store each page.
6. Develop, test, and document the procedure to find and retrieve pages via the index built during step 2.

Project management • Seamus McFly wants to start step 4, and Barbaric Manchurian wants to start step 5, but no volunteers have finished steps 1, 2, and 3 yet._ And all of the first 5 steps are pointless without step 6, which also has no volunteers._ On any project, you have to have all of the resources for all of the tasks in place at the outset, or risk failure._ Columbus Center is a perfect example, and proves that you should never start until you have everything you need.

Schedule • Over the last 14 years, at least 9 competing owners have lain some claim to the future profits imagined from this proposal._ Lawsuits among those partners have been threatened, but none have been filed yet._ Also, the public hearings that would have to precede the City and state re-approval processes aren’t even scheduled (“Pike will pay to clean up building site”, Boston Globe, 18 August 2009)._ So, with 14 years already gone, and several more years for lawsuits, then several years to repeat the public proposal-and-review process, then several years for financing, and 5 - 15 years for construction (which is the developers’ latest request), that means that completing parcels 16-19 could be a 38-year effort — 1996 through 2034 — regardless of what’s built, or who builds it.

To be successful, your proposed records-publishing project needs to accommodate that potential 38-year time line._ An incomplete library is of no use to anyone.

Finally, multi-decade publishing projects like yours also need permanent coordinators, not just to answer user questions, fix mistakes, and respond to criticisms, but also to train and manage the temporary student volunteers doing the grunt work, because there’s a fresh crop of them every semester.

. . . I don't really want to read 16,000 pages, but . . . I'm sure many here would like to at least be able to peruse it and verify some of the facts that you state.

Yes, of course they do, but it’s a slippery slope between the “reading” that you’re sure you don’t want to do and the “perusing” that you think you might want to do._ There’s no such thing as reading “just one” page or “just one” document about this proposal, because most documents refer to or incorporate other documents._ This whole spaghetti ball has few boundaries, and it doesn’t respect the limits that busy readers want to set.

. . . some of the facts that you state. I don't think we doubt them, but we cannot corroborate the information.

Yes, you can._ All of the sources that I cited can be corroborated by anyone, using the title, author, and date.

No, it is not easy, and no, it is not quick, and it certainly can’t be done by a couple of students over a weekend of pizza._ It takes money, time, and dedication in amounts that no one else has ever been willing to donate._ That’s understandable; having done more research on Columbus Center than anyone else here, even I am not willing to expand my current commitments._ But every public record is available to anyone who wants to corroborate anything.

[Ned Flaherty]

I can't do it myself, as I don't have the public records. . .

That’s correct._ You never did collect the public records that you say you want to publish._ So if you want to pursue your proposed project, then step #1 is for you to get those records, from the authors, and from the government custodians who guarantee the authenticity._ Don’t collect unauthenticated documents from third parties, because then you can not prove that they are complete, or that they are genuine, or that the government stands behind them.

Your school’s curriculum teaches how to do a work plan that allocates the tasks, people, facilities, time, and money that are needed to make a project succeed._ See post #2013 above._ Be careful you don’t jump into any project without such a plan._ (Columbus Center’s managers made that mistake, and they lost $110 million.)

[bosdevelopment]

Stop preaching. When it goes up you will be sorry.

[KentXie]

That’s correct._ You never did collect the public records that you say you want to publish._ So if you want to pursue your proposed project, then step #1 is for you to get those records, from the authors, and from the government custodians who guarantee the authenticity._ Don’t collect unauthenticated documents from third parties, because then you can not prove that they are complete, or that they are genuine, or that the government stands behind them.


So you are saying that your 16,000 page public record that you look into are not complete, genuine, or that the government stands behind them? Interesting...

[BarbaricManchurian]

That’s correct._ You never did collect the public records that you say you want to publish._ So if you want to pursue your proposed project, then step #1 is for you to get those records, from the authors, and from the government custodians who guarantee the authenticity._ Don’t collect unauthenticated documents from third parties, because then you can not prove that they are complete, or that they are genuine, or that the government stands behind them.

Your school’s curriculum teaches how to do a work plan that allocates the tasks, people, facilities, time, and money that are needed to make a project succeed._ See post #2013 above._ Be careful you don’t jump into any project without such a plan._ (Columbus Center’s managers made that mistake, and they lost $110 million.)

Sure, I'm really going to go to the dozens of disparate places where the documents are stored, with most giving access only if you're a resident of the City of Boston and/or by appointment only. :rolleyes:

[Justin7]

Ned,

You claim to have the documents and suggest that we read them, but you do not have the will to make them easily accessible? Others have offered to handle scanning the pages and putting them online yet you refuse to be helpful. You can sit there and make excuses as to why, but in my opinion you have lost all credibility.

[TedG]

Ned,

You claim to have the documents and suggest that we read them, but you do not have the will to make them easily accessible? Others have offered to handle scanning the pages and putting them online yet you refuse to be helpful. You can sit there and make excuses as to why, but in my opinion you have lost all credibility.

I think that what Ned is trying to say is that is that if he scans the records himself, and any one of you folks sees something in them that you don't like, then you'll all be accusing Ned of altering them. The only way to assure that no one can accuse anybody of altering anything is to get them yourselves from the same sources Ned got them from.

I don't blame Ned for his concerns, seeing how everyone jumps all over him every time he makes a post.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^he could just tell what he has altered, then. It's not like he's extremely untrustworthy, just we want to see some proof to back up some of his more extreme statements.

[Justin7]

I think that what Ned is trying to say is that is that if he scans the records himself, and any one of you folks sees something in them that you don't like, then you'll all be accusing Ned of altering them. The only way to assure that no one can accuse anybody of altering anything is to get them yourselves from the same sources Ned got them from.

I don't blame Ned for his concerns, seeing how everyone jumps all over him every time he makes a post.

Paranoia.

So better to just ask everyone to take his word for it without the records? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Quoting from records that only he possesses is asking for more trust than quoting from records that are easily available to everyone.

If Ned refuses to share the records then I don't see how he can expect to be taken seriously. He no longer has any credibility.

[Ned Flaherty]

So you are saying that your 16,000 page public record that you look into are not complete, genuine, or that the government stands behind them?

No, I never said that at all._ Your proposed project is evidence-dependent, and evidence must be complete, genuine, and government-backed._ So you have to get all your evidence, yourself, from each original author or government records custodian._ Collecting partial records from third parties does not produce evidence, and results obtained that way can’t be used as evidence.

. . . places where the documents are stored, with most giving access only if you're a resident of the City of Boston and/or by appointment only. . .

What you believe is not true._ You are ignorant about public records in general, and you are ignorant of both of the public records laws._ Neither law requires that a requestor be a “Boston resident” as you wrote, and neither law requires that a request be handled “by appointment only” as you wrote.

If you skip any of these 10 steps, then your project will fail.

1. Learn the public records laws.
2. Create a realistic work plan.
3. Obtain 16,000 original pages from authors or government records custodians.
4. Understand the significance of each page, and cross-reference it to related pages.
5. Add the title, author, date, and new logical page number to each page.
6. Build a professional index search-able by date, author, title, content, and page.
7. Scan each page.
8. Proofread each page and fix each incorrect text character.
9. Store each scanned page in the repository, and log each page in the index.
10. Test the procedure to find and retrieve pages via the index.

. . . You . . . have the documents and suggest that we read them, but you do not have the will to make them easily accessible? . . .

I do have 16,000 pages of public records, and I do recommend that people unfamiliar with this proposal get the same pages that I cited, and read them._ But making them “easily accessible” as you wrote requires doing each of the 10 steps above._ And doing that much work, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free, is pointless._ That’s why I am not willing to do it, and that’s why no one else here is willing to do it.

. . . Others have offered to handle scanning the pages and putting them online yet you refuse to be helpful. . .

You do not understand the project that you are proposing._ Just “scanning pages” (step 7) and just “putting them online” (step 8) is useless if you don’t first finish steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

You mistakenly think that being “on-line” and being “accessible” are the same thing._ They are not.

If Barbaric Manchurian, Kent Xie, Seamus McFly, and Justin each post 4,000 pages on-line with no professionally prepared index, then those 16,000 pages are just as inaccessible on-line as they were off-line, because users:

• do not know the significance of what they are looking at;
• can not tell which records are available vs. unavailable;
• can not connect related records to each other; and
• can not find what they need.

I’s clear from the posts that forum members don’t read or recall what’s in the thread’s 203 pages now, so if they can’t do that then they surely won’t absorb an additional 15,797 un-indexed pages.

You can’t blame your project’s failure on my decision not to help you, because none of the 10 tasks depend upon me to get done._ With enough money, facilities, time, skill, and dedication, anyone (with a realistic work plan) can do them.

So, if you believe that your proposed project is worthy, then just do it yourself._ And, if you believe your approach could succeed, then do a 1,000-page test to prove your theory._ But if you keep skipping steps 1 through 6, and keep proposing to start at step 7, then no knowledgeable professional will waste their own resources by donating to such an ill-defined, mis-understood effort, and you will have to provide the funds, facilities, and staffing all by yourself.

. . . I think that what Ned is trying to say is that is that if he scans the records himself . . . then you'll all be accusing Ned of altering them.

No._ That’s not what I’m trying to say.

. . . just we want to see some proof to back up some of his more extreme statements.

The information I post comes from the public records that I cite._ If people who are new to the project feel that any information sounds “extreme” then they should go get whatever records they doubt, decide for themselves, and post whatever they think is relevant.

But even after 2 years, no one has done that, and no one is willing to.

[BarbaricManchurian]

I do have 16,000 pages of public records, and I do recommend that people unfamiliar with this proposal get the same pages that I cited, and read them._ But making them “easily accessible” as you wrote requires doing each of the 10 steps above._ And doing that much work, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free, is pointless._ That’s why I am not willing to do it, and that’s why no one else here is willing to do it.

Then posting here in general is pointless. If you aren't here to do anything but make unsubstantiated statements and diatribes, without providing the material to back it up, please leave the site, as you are not helping or benefiting anyone.

[Justin7]

Ned, you are intentionally and unnecessarily complicating matters in an attempt to regain credibility. Your arbitrary ten steps have absolutely no basis in reality.

If the records are accessible online then they can easily be searched and referenced. We are not talking about a single 16,000 page document. There is no difficultly in breaking the records up and linking to them. There is also no difficulty in referencing a particular document and linking to it. Welcome to the internet.

What this comes down to is that you either do not want others to see the documents or you do not actually have them.

I'll write now for a third time: You have lost all credibility.

[KentXie]

I'm interested in this now. Ned, can you at least give me hints or advice on how to obtain 16,000 pages of public record? Where can I get the sources? Are they from newspapers, library, the government, etc?

[Ned Flaherty]

Then posting here in general is pointless . . . you aren't here to do anything but make unsubstantiated statements and diatribes, without providing the material to back it up . . .

ArchBoston.org rules don’t require anyone to back up anything — with any material — ever._ That’s obvious in most postings, where members don’t cite any usable sources._ Even though it’s not required, I cite every source, so anyone who has any doubt can easily do further research.

You are a hypocrite to promote a double standard whereby I must post all related public records behind every citation I give, but no other member ever has to cite sources at all.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Your arbitrary ten steps have absolutely no basis in reality. If the records are accessible online then they can easily be searched and referenced . . . There is no difficultly in breaking the records up and linking to them . . . referencing a particular document and linking to it.

No, the ten steps aren’t arbitrary, and yes, they do have a basis in reality._ Most professionals know that just posting an image never guarantees search-ability, cross-referencing, etc., but ask a government records specialist since you’re still unclear on the basic concepts.

No system of the scale and scope that you imagine was ever created using the crude approach that you propose, because just posting a page does not automatically makes it search-able, referenced, split, linked, cross-referenced, usable, or any of the other features you assume._ If you still believe your idea is possible, then just prove it, in a demonstration test, with the first 1,000 pages._ Scan ’em, post ’em, observe whether they perform all those other chores automatically, and then let forum members take your project for a test drive.

. . . you either do not want others to see the documents . . .

Untrue._ If I didn’t want anyone to see those documents, I would not have disclosed the titles, authors, dates, and organizations._ I have been posting detailed citations for over 2 years precisely because I do hope others will go get the same documents, directly from the authors and government records custodians, and see for themselves.

I do want people to see the documents, and I do provide them to elected officials, agency heads, journalists, community leaders, and others._ My decision not to waste my time on your unworkable proposal does not mean I won’t continue sharing public records with others; it only means I won’t waste my time on your proposal.

On the other hand, your failure to carry out your proposal — which doesn’t depend on me at all — betrays your lack of faith in its merits, your lack of ability to execute it, or your discovery that it simply does not work.

. . . or you do not actually have them. . .

Untrue again._ My unwillingness to waste my resources on your unworkable proposal does not mean that I did not obtain 14 years worth of public records; it only means that I am unwilling to waste resources on an unworkable proposal.

No part of your proposal depends on me, so if it’s any good at all, then just prove that it can do what you imagine by executing it.

[Justin7]

No, the ten steps aren’t arbitrary, and yes, they do have a basis in reality._ Most professionals know that just posting an image never guarantees search-ability, cross-referencing, etc., but ask a government records specialist since you’re still unclear on the basic concepts.

I'm going to stop you right there because I wasn't aware I was having this discussion with my grandmother.

Who said anything about posting images? Believe it or not, there is a variety of readily available software that will take a scanned text based image (or, say, 16,000) and convert it to actual honest-to-goodness searchable text at the push of a button.

All right, now go back to lecturing me on absurd ten step programs, government records specialists, and what is or is not possible in Ned's world.

Also, I've made no proposal. I haven't followed this project other of looking at renders, feeling it would be an obvious improvement over what is there, and learning that at this point in time, for various reasons, it is unlikely to happen. I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. I have little interest in reading these documents. Certainly not enough to take the time to scan them. Your dishonestly and hypocrisy, however, calls for rebuke.

There are no rules on this forum stating that you need to provide documentation for your claims, but if you want to be taken seriously that is what is now required. Until that time I will make a claim of my own. Ned Flaherty is completely without credibility concerning matters discussed in this thread. I have 1600 pages of documents that prove it. You'll just have to take my word for that.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . can you at least give me hints or advice on how to obtain 16,000 pages of public record?

I don’t have time to teach a whole course about it, but here’s a summary of what I did since 1992.

1. Learn both public records laws.
2. Learn the city and state public processes for project reviews.
3. Get every related news article since 1992.
4. Get copies of records from libraries (might reduce cost a little bit).
5. Request copies of records from agencies (MTA, BRA, EOE&EA, etcetera).

Typical experiences (every agency has different rules)
• State cost:_ up to $0.20/page, plus up to $90/hour labor to find, review, edit, and re-file.
• Federal cost:_ up to $0.15/page, plus up to $45/hour for finding each document.
• Total turnaround time:_ 20 days - 20 months per document (without appeals).
• Appeal time:_ add several months.

[statler]

In an ideal world, the various local, state and federal government agencies would have hired a company like Google to to digitize and post all public documents online so a quick search with words "Columbus Center" would retrieve all relevant documents.

It's nice to dream....

Edit:

Out of curiosity, I did a Google search for "Google Government Documents" and found this site

Uncle Sam (http://www.google.com/unclesam)

A search for "Columbus Center" was, of course, useless due to the generic name, but a search for "Columbus Center Boston, MA" was a bit more revealing (http://www.google.com/unclesam?hl=en&site=unclesam&restrict=unclesam&output=unclesam&q=%22Columbus+Center%22%2C+Boston+MA&btnG=Search).

Perhaps some fine tuning would get even better results?

[Beton Brut]

Is there any way we could settle this with a dance-off?

[BarbaricManchurian]

I don’t have time...

Yes you do. You have plenty of time to write your personal attacks on this forum, so you definitely have enough time to back up your statements with proof (e.g. you don't have to upload all 16,000 pages, just the ones that back up your statements).

[statler]

Is there any way we could settle this with a dance-off?

It's really the only way...

[Beton Brut]

"She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing." — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 17-28)

.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Who said anything about posting images?

Barbaric Manchurian, one of your partners in the “just-scan-and-load” scheme, proposed images._ He wrote in post #1992, “you can take photos of them and upload them onto PhotoBucket, which is the fastest method but doesn’t allow text searching.”_ He wrote that probably because of the core document among the 16,000 pages:_ the 3,400-page Air Rights Lease, which Turnpike attorneys intentionally released only in a fuzzy, non-text-searchable, image-based format.

. . . there is a variety of readily available software that will take a scanned text based image . . . and convert it to actual honest-to-goodness searchable text at the push of a button.

Such software’s been around for decades, and although gradually improving, has never been perfected enough to automatically compensate for the images produced by poor quality government copiers._ Therefore, for the “just-scan-and-load” approach that you propose, step 8 (proofreading and fixing) is still a necessity.

. . . There are no rules on this forum stating that you need to provide documentation for your claims, but if you want to be taken seriously that is what is now required.

I often post new information that I find in my research, and I cite every source, so everything is already documented.

Some forum members have complained that this thread has too little cheerleading, and too much discussion of detailed data, so you’ll need the permission of the ArchBoston.org owners before trying to decree that every statement needs not only the usable citations that I always provide, but also additional documents, some of which total thousands of pages._ ArchBoston.org hasn’t provided any software for this, or reserved the storage space for it, and third party providers are either too costly (the functional ones), or else too limited and subject to change (the free ones).

. . . I have little interest in reading these documents.

It is hypocritical for you to demand thousands of pages of evidence which you also admit that you have little interest in reading.

. . . I have 1600 pages of documents that prove it. You'll just have to take my word for that.

No one takes your word — or anyone else’s word, thankfully — when an author can’t cite titles, dates, authors, and organizations of the sources used._ I always cite sources, so there’s no problem.

The documentation gap arises from 3 problems:

■ Forum members are unwilling to go get the sources that are cited here.
■ The forum lacks the resources to post all source documents from every member.
■ No one is willing to donate the resources needed to put the 16,000-page Columbus Center history on-line in a usable fashion.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Barbaric Manchurian, one of your partners in the “just-scan-and-load” scheme, proposed images._ He wrote in post #1992, “you can take photos of them and upload them onto PhotoBucket, which is the fastest method but doesn’t allow text searching.”_ He wrote that probably because of the core document among the 16,000 pages:_ the 3,400-page Air Rights Lease, which Turnpike attorneys intentionally released only in a fuzzy, non-text-searchable, image-based format.

No one by the screen name of "Barbaric Manchurian" said that (in fact, there is no forum user with that exact screen name). In fact, I did not capitalize "Bucket" in post #1992, and my screen name is not "Barbaric Manchurian", so therefore you have used incorrect quoting and context and have made your point invalid. Even the tiniest flaws in grammar can mean huge things to a lawyer, engineer, or other professional, so why do you have to blatantly lie when you falsely claim "Barbaric Manchurian" wrote that?

Such software’s been around for decades, and although gradually improving, has never been perfected enough to automatically compensate for the images produced by poor quality government copiers._ Therefore, for the “just-scan-and-load” approach that you propose, step 8 (proofreading and fixing) is still a necessity.

Look at Google Book Search. It's totally searchable using text-recognition used on copies made by "poor quality government copiers" (i.e. library copiers). Therefore, this point is also invalid.

Some forum members have complained that this thread has too little cheerleading, and too much discussion of detailed data, so you’ll need the permission of the ArchBoston.org owners before trying to decree that every statement needs not only the usable citations that I always provide, but also additional documents, some of which total thousands of pages._ ArchBoston.org hasn’t provided any software for this, or reserved the storage space for it, and third party providers are either too costly (the functional ones), or else too limited and subject to change (the free ones).

Third party providers are free and functional, so stop lying again, for the 3rd time in just one post.

Sorry, but I'm allergic to bullshit.

[Beton Brut]

Not to turn us away from this scintillating discussion, Ned, but you list your occupation as "urban planning activist." May I ask the name of your favorite writer or theorist in the discipline?

[bbfen]

Not to turn us away from this scintillating discussion, Ned, but you list your occupation as "urban planning activist." May I ask the name of your favorite writer or theorist in the discipline?

Beton Brut, for the win.

And after that giggle, I would now like to nominate this thread for a lock!

[palindrome]

This thread makes my eyes bleed.

[PlanBoston]

Beton Brut, for the win.

And after that giggle, I would now like to nominate this thread for a lock!

Agreed. For those of us who are genuinely interested in what is happening at this site, this thread has become completely useless. It's the ArchBoston equivalent of Jerry Springer.

[type001]

Ned has officially lost on many counts. Now lock it down.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Ned, . . . you list your occupation as "urban planning activist." May I ask the name of your favorite writer or theorist in the discipline?

No, I don’t list my occupation as urban planning activist._ I am an urban planning activist, but it is not my occupation._ As you know, I focus on public policy and public process more than architecture._ (All this was covered previously.)

Since you asked, I do not have a favorite writer “in the discipline” as you wrote._ Globally, urban theorist Jane Jacobs seems ideal for my purposes._ Nationally, Greg Leroy is profoundly important, and deserves more recognition._ Locally, landscape architect and urban designer Shirley Kressel is a treasure, and an inspiration._ There is some excellent writing at City Journal (nationally) and CommonWealth Magazine (Massachusetts).

There are about four members who want to continue discussing the on-line public records project proposed by Kent Xie, Barbaric Manchurian and Seamus McFly, and there are about four members who don’t._ Having nothing further to say on the subject, I join with those who don’t._ No discussion is needed until after the volunteers have a prototype ready for other forum members to test.

People who are tired of Columbus Center — but interested in air rights — would do well to focus on the 4 proposals filed on 5 December 2008, which have not received the attention they deserve.

But locking this whole thread is unwise, because there are about 5 news stories in the mill regarding site restoration, tunnels, and The Related Companies.

[Beton Brut]

Thanks for your detailed reply, Ned.

No, I don’t list my occupation as urban planning activist._ I am an urban planning activist, but it is not my occupation._ As you know, I focus on public policy and public process more than architecture._

I should have been more clear in my question. In your archBOSTON member profile (http://www.archboston.org/community/member.php?u=577), you identify yourself as an urban planning activist. I wasn't looking to scrutinize your CV, just to better understand the sources of your knowledge and opinion.

I do consider it unfortunate in the extreme that a person as invested in our built environment as you are isn't interested in aesthetics. Truly, a person with your intelligence and drive could do a lot of good. (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=83044&postcount=1524) You're like a cook who hates to eat. It makes me sad.

Since you asked, I do not have a favorite writer “in the discipline” as you wrote._ Globally, urban theorist Jane Jacobs seems ideal for my purposes._ Nationally, Greg Leroy is profoundly important, and deserves more recognition._ Locally, landscape architect and urban designer Shirley Kressel is a treasure, and an inspiration._ There is some excellent writing at City Journal (nationally) and CommonWealth Magazine (Massachusetts).

Your reading list is a good one. I've recently finished Jane Jacobs' Dark Age Ahead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Age_Ahead). Her thoughts and ideas are compelling, even if the presentation isn't as engaging as some of her other work.

I must admit, I haven't read much of LeRoy's work. I did see an excerpt from his Great American Jobs Scam (http://www.greatamericanjobsscam.com/pages/author.html); he seems like a less cuddly Michael Moore.

I'm a bit surprised that you didn't mention our own Jane Holtz Kay (http://www.janeholtzkay.com/).

...locking this whole thread is unwise, because there are about 5 news stories in the mill regarding site restoration, tunnels, and The Related Companies.

I have no interest in seeing any productive discussion ended in this or any thread on archBOSTON.

[underground]

I'm not an Urban Planning Professional, I AM Urban Planning!
- Napoleon, ur, I mean Ned

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . I should have been more clear in my question . . . I do consider it unfortunate in the extreme that a person as invested in our built environment as you are isn't interested in aesthetics. . .You're like a cook who hates to eat.

I should have been more clear in my answer._ I am very concerned about aesthetics._ The results of most human activity are driven by design — macroscopic or huge, temporary or permanent, overt or behind the scenes._ All design is quite important._ But I am not a built environment designer, so I let those people work on those issues._ My (indirect) contribution to good urban design is to advocate for good public policy and good public process._ That’s what creates the time, space, and forum in which designers can advocate for good design.

[sidewalks]

Perhaps we could add a forum to New Development, Existing Development, Transit...and call it Uncle Ned's Echo Chamber...and people could freely log on to watch the spectacle that is this black hole of a thread.

Or just post that clip from The Shining in which a maniacally delusional Jack Nicholson taps 'all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy' over and over and over and ....same difference.

[Ned Flaherty]

Visions and revisions

Boston Globe • Casey Ross • September 20, 2009

We asked designers to suggest ways to spruce up stalled building projects around the city. Practical and whimsical alike, the results are a far cry from Boston’s buttoned-down norm.

There is no telling when a building will rise again at the stalled Filene’s redevelopment, so the city’s architects are filling the void with a few ideas of their own: One is proposing to use the site for a makeshift movie theater, another envisions an exhibit for 1950s neon signs, and still another imagines a towering vertical garden to grow algae for alternative fuels.

The ideas are not restrained by considerations of practicality or cost, and they are not meant to be. They represent an effort to do something creative with a landscape marred by a prolonged slump in commercial building. At stalled work sites, architects and planners are seeking to create forums for artistic expression and experimentation, transforming weed-strewn lots into places where people could pause to enjoy intriguing urban scenery, or at least walk their dogs.

“The idea is to breathe new life into these projects at a time when people would really appreciate it,” said Shauna Gillies-Smith, a landscape architect who proposed a medicinal garden for an empty site in the Longwood Med ical Area. “It’s about signaling a present and future commitment to the public realm.”

At the request of the Globe, Gillies-Smith and nearly 20 other architects and designers submitted proposals for enlivening idled sites across the city. The $700 million Filene’s redevelopment, because of its prominent location downtown, drew the most responses. But proposals were also produced for the $800 million Columbus Center development, Harvard University’s $1 billion science center in Allston, and a $300 million biotechnology laboratory at the corner of Longwood and Brookline avenues.

While some submissions are whimsical, others propose straightforward improvements such as basic lighting improvements or graphics to upgrade dull construction fencing. At Columbus Center, principals of Schweppie Lighting Design Inc. proposed covering a fence with panels that change color as people pass by. At Harvard, John Powell suggested covering the fence in a video screen with images of Allston’s past and renderings of how development could change it in the future.

The fixes range in cost from $300,000 to $1.2 million. Together, they urge developers and city officials to break from Boston’s insistence on the traditional and consider bold displays that are more common in cities such as Tokyo or New York. At the least, said Tim Love, a principal of design firm Utile Inc., developers have an obligation to see that stalled projects don’t become eyesores.

“Any landowner has a civic responsibility to make their property look attractive,’’ Love said. “If a homeowner has a weed-filled front yard or leaves trash out, they would face penalties in most municipalities.”

Other cities are adopting an array of solutions to the construction slump. In Miami, officials are renting idled sites from developers for $1 a year and making temporary parks of them. In Seattle, one developer of a stalled 15-story office building volunteered to build a fountain, benches, and landscaping, while another allowed local food vendors to set up at the proposed site of a hotel he hasn’t been able to build.

A New York City business association solicited proposals for art installations at four work sites. The installations include a large mural, a series of ink and graphite drawings on a construction barricade, and a covering for 400 feet of Jersey barriers emblazoned with flowers and other colorful images.

Boston officials are now mulling whether to install temporary dressings at several sites. The Boston Redevelopment Authority asked developer John B. Hynes III to cover the two half-demolished buildings on his Filene’s site with large screens. Hynes and city officials are considering whether to print graphics or other designs on the screens.

The BRA is also consulting with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority about restoring the land at the Columbus Center site. And it is collaborating with the Blackstone Group on a project to install permanent sculptures in and around the lobbies of several buildings the company is renovating downtown.

“There’s not a lack of ideas being batted around,’’ said Kairos Shen, the BRA’s chief planner. “The problem is, how do you implement them? The reason these installations seldom get off the ground is there is no money to pay for them.”

In most cases, the burden of paying for temporary installations falls on the developer. Builders already don’t have the money restart construction, so they are reluctant to find and spend as much as $1 million for aesthetic improvements.

“I’m not averse to landscaping and creating something unique, but by the time you take down the fencing and mobilize to do the work, we hopefully will be ready to proceed with our development,” said Tom Alperin, chief executive of National Development, which stopped construction last fall on the Longwood biotech lab.

The Globe received two proposals from urban designers for the Longwood site, one a landscaped park with a raised plaza and walkways across the property; and the proposal by Gillies-Smith for a medicinal garden with echinacea, begonias, and other plants intended to evoke the healing theme of the neighborhood.

Alperin said it would be too much work to accommodate either proposal in the time frame he’s working with. He said he hopes to resume construction within 18 months.

Some architects and designers urged the city to consider new regulations to help pay for art installations. Josh Barandon, chief executive of Squared Design LLC of Los Angeles, said the city should consider levying a penalty on developers who leave their sites dormant for prolonged periods.

“In our opinion, such a penalty is both logical and feasible, especially in light of the current situation at Downtown Crossing,” said Barandon, whose firm collaborated with Howeler + Yoon of Boston to create a vertical garden at Filene’s to grow algae for the production of alternative fuel.

Love, the principal of Utile, said the city could require developers to buy insurance that would pay for aesthetic improvements in case financial problems forced them to stop construction.

“If developers want to play in this city and take risks, one of the risks they have to mitigate is the chance that the economy might collapse between permitting and construction,” he said.

But advocates for the commercial building industry said putting more demands on developers will only stifle building that the city should be trying to stimulate. “To financially penalize developers trying to hold onto their projects is ludicrous at a time like this,” said David Begelfer, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts, a commercial real estate trade group. “We have a unique circumstance in the financial markets. If you try to put in place regulations because of that, it could have unintended consequences for future growth.”

Hynes, the Filene’s developer, doesn’t know when he’ll be able to resume construction. In the meantime, as he prepares screens to protect the two buildings on the site this winter, Hynes said he is willing to consider incorporating art but is more focused on the functional than the fanciful.

“Priority one is to protect the structure of the buildings, and priority two is the aesthetics,” he said. “We’re not predisposed to anything, but the hope for us is that whatever we end up doing, the emphasis is on temporary.”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/09/20/designers_suggest_ways_to_spruce_up_stalled_buildi ng_projects_around_boston/?page=full

[Ned Flaherty]

Re-imagining Boston’s stalled projects

20 September 2009 • by Casey Ross (Boston Globe) & Jesse Nunes (Boston.com)

Stalled site: Columbus Center

Location: Between Arlington and Clarendon streets over the Massachusetts Turnpike

Estimated cost: $800 million

Status: Construction was stopped more than a year ago as developers search for funds to resume the development. Meanwhile, the state has said it will pay to undo construction work at the site, which has been the subject of many neighborhood complaints.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/stalled-1.jpg
Wendy Maeda / Globe staff photo


Columbus Center design #1

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/stalled-2.jpg

Architect: Chris Reed

Design firm: Stoss Landscape Urbanism

Reed proposes suspending an energy-producing public garden from latticework over the Massachusetts Turnpike at Columbus Center. The latticework supports a field of microturbines that harness wind created by passing vehicles; it also supports walkways connecting the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods.


Columbus Center design #2

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/stalled-3.jpg

Architect: D. Schweppe

Design firm: Schweppe Lighting Design Inc.

Schweppe proposes to install dichroic panels around the Columbus Center site that change color as people pass by. During the day, the panels change color and will change color as the different angles of sunlight interact with it. At night, solar powered lights will illuminate it from behind.


Columbus Center design #3

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/stalled-4.jpg

Architect: Simon Hare

Design firm: Placetailor Inc.

Hare proposes to cast a nylon canopy over Columbus Center, to reconnect the community with the construction site and its possibilities. The canopy, to be spread across the Massachusetts Turnpike work site, would be supported by metal poles and braces that would lift it 30 feet over the highway.

http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/holerenderings?pg=15

[tobyjug]

Mr. Hare must live in Hawaii. Imagine that thing in a snowstorm!

[Beton Brut]

Apparently they've dumped "Vitamin Stupid" in Placetailor Inc's water cooler.

[czsz]

Reed proposes suspending an energy-producing public garden from latticework over the Massachusetts Turnpike at Columbus Center.

Would love to see the debates over public subsidies for CC while union maintenance crews are paid through the roof to suspend themselves above the expressway, clamber over the lattices, and water the plants.

proposes to cast a nylon canopy over Columbus Center, to reconnect the community with the construction site and its possibilities

Yes, because the "community" can walk on the nylon, or something.

The middle one just looks like a glorification of the current construction fence and the indeterminacy of the site.

Blegh.

[atlrvr]

Do these plans mitigate or exacerbate UFP dangers?

Do they comply with the Turnpike Master Plan thingy?

Will it be competitevly bid?

Will there be public subsidies?

Sarcasm aside....leave the damn thing the way it is.

[bostonbred]

Old uncle say thise are the ONaNISTIC pictures and arkitect should be "reimaging' pretty girls or SHeEps instead when he do this things. Or buy hooker. BUT. Iam not liking the Ono musik as being the skreeechy one. And DRUNK peeples will falling into big garbage bags and being chopped by the big windmills too avoid sounds and pass out from gassy emissions near Mr. Ned.F.

[Ned Flaherty]

Owners of Columbus Center split up

The principal owners of Columbus Center have parted ways after losing nearly $1 billion.

CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) and CUIP (California Urban Investment Partners) recently forced the resignation of MURC (MacFarlane Urban Realty Company). The partnership among the three California-based owners ended after MURC lost $970 million of state pensioners’ deposits on another project. The lease amendment that MTA negotiated with Columbus Center in 2007 states that CalPERS provides 97% of MURC’s funding to enable MURC to manage CalPERS real estate investments.

Since March 2006, when Winn Development of Boston sold the proposed project to the 3 California-based partners, they have owned the majority of Columbus Center, and controlled all major decision-making. Those owners identify their other projects on their web sites, and issue periodic press releases, yet they never identified Columbus Center or issued a press release about it, raising increasing doubts about its true ownership over the last 4 years.

Until the owners’ break-up, nine entities were still quietly laying claim to portions of the future revenues and profits.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/9Partners.jpg

But state transportation officials never confirmed exactly what the ownership percentages were, or who was truly in control. The recent split of the 3 principal owners makes getting those answers more urgent, because the state has been restoring the 7-acre site at tollpayer and taxpayer expense, and hoping to recover reimbursement at some future date from whoever the owners turn out to be. The owners’ recent split-up now makes recovering from any of them more difficult.

MURC’s resignation came after it spent $970 million of CalPERS funds on a California project that filed for bankruptcy only 18 months later. Columbus Center, too, lost its promised CalPERS funding only 18 months after CalPERS invested. That forced minority partner Winn Development to attempt tunnel construction with its own cash. In October 2007, Winn began spending $5 million monthly, but ran out of cash after only 6 months, never finished site preparation or pre-construction tasks, and halted all work in March 2008.

Status
So, having just entered its 15th year of “planning,” 5 key realities for the Columbus Center proposal remain:

1 • Every bank ever asked to finance Columbus Center refused.
2 • It has no owner-investor willing to risk the 40% equity ($340 million) that banks now require for lending $510 million to the $850 million project.
3 • MURC never released the $145 million required by the MTA lease.
4 • The 19 public subsidy requests totaling $604 million were disapproved, suspended, withdrawn, disqualified, or otherwise rescinded.
5 • Columbus Center spent $111 million, but never built anything.

Sources
“Cassin vows Columbus Center project remains alive and well” (Banker & Tradesman, 14 April 2008)
“State pulls $10m slated for Columbus Center” (Boston Globe, 8 April 2008)
Columbus Center Lease Amendment (MTA, 29 February 2008)
“MacFarlane resigns as adviser to CalPERS” (Wall Street Journal, 24 October 2009)
“Land deal advisor resigns from CalPERS” (Reuters News Wire, 25 October 2009)

[palindrome]

Thanks for the update. Have the cleaned/closed the construction site for good?

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . Have the cleaned/closed the construction site for good?

There are still signs on the chain link fences directing visitors to a 39 Church Street Construction Office and to a 617-719-4886 telephone, but both of those were shut down after construction halted in March 2008. For several weeks, one of the 3 gates has been left open, and another has stayed knocked down.

The 5-parcel, 7-acre site has not been cleaned, but it has not been closed, either. Apparently, no one is maintaining it, or even monitoring it.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Parcel16westwardview02-Jan-2010.jpg
Parcel 16 westward (02 January 2010)


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Parcel17southward02-Jan-2010.jpg
Parcel 17 westward (02 January 2010)


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Parcels18-G18-Rwestward02-Jan-2010.jpg
Parcels 18-G & 18-R westward (02 January 2010)


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Parcel19westward02-Jan-2010.jpg
Parcel 19 westward (02 January 2010)

I drew up a list of 27 Site Restoration Tasks, and met with MA DOT Deputy Secretary Peter O’Connor, and later MA DOT Secretary Jeff Mullan, to urge faster progress. They accepted the task list, and slowly pursued it for a while. But over the last 1-1/2 years, only 7 of those tasks were finished. With 20 of the 27 tasks still un-assigned, un-scheduled, and un-started, at this rate, restoration won’t finish until February 2013 — 17 years after Columbus Center was first proposed.

On 24 September 2009, four state legislators wrote to the MA DOT Secretary and asked that names and deadlines be assigned to each outstanding task so that the property can be restored to its 2005 condition — and put back out for competitive bids — much sooner than 2013, and so that tollpayers and taxpayers can get reimbursed for having to fund the 7-acre restoration at public expense.

As of 31 December 2009, those legislators had no progress to report from DOT.

[ablarc]

An ignominious death for a fine project.

The benefits it promised Boston are without peer.

Damn the Luddites.

[JohnAKeith]

Ned, sounds as if another call to your State Representative is in order!

[czsz]

Don't worry, Ned, your hard work will surely mean everyone's fine view of the poison-belching highway will be restored soon.

[KentXie]

Don't worry, Ned, your hard work will surely mean everyone's fine view of the poison-belching highway will be restored soon.

Don't forget about the noise pollution!

[Ron Newman]

Is it dead, or just resting?

[Ned Flaherty]

An ignominious death for a fine project. . .

That’s untrue. The owners and bankers required levels of fineness that the proposal never reached.

The benefits it promised Boston are without peer.

That’s also untrue. Except for those who are (or hope to be) on the development industry gravy train, few people saw any of the “peer-less” benefits that you imagine. In the final analysis, this project failed because, despite the promotional efforts of the profiteers and the industry apologists, Columbus Center’s bankers, government agencies, and owners decided not to pursue it.

Damn the Luddites.

“Luddite” is a derisive term for someone opposed (or perceived to be opposed) to technological progress. But there’s no record of anyone opposing the technologies mentioned in the proposal.

• All bankers who were asked to fund this proposal refused, but just being risk-averse does not make them Luddites.
• Government subsidies ended up disapproved, disqualified, expired, and rescinded, but using taxpayer dollars wisely does not make agency leaders Luddites, either.
• The owners halted funding because they disagreed over which owners were at fault for what, but refusing to throw good money after bad does not make them Luddites, either.

There are no Luddites to blame, only project owners whose proposal was rejected by the bankers, governments, and taxpayers who were asked to pay for its costs and profits.

Future proponents would be wise to write business plans that do not depend upon public bail-outs.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . everyone's fine view . . . will be restored soon.

That’s untrue. No views are being restored. All views of the turnpike are the same as they were when it was built 48 years ago. This proposal failed not because of views, but because the bankers, agencies, and owners — after 15 years of planning — decided not to pursue it.

. . . the poison-belching highway. . .

The corridor’s toxic air does harm the health of people living or working above or near the site. But not only would Columbus Center have done nothing to reduce that harm, it would have captured and concentrated the polluted air and exhausted it through vents, thus increasing the harm at this location over what already occurs today.

[bostonbred]

Mr. Ned F. CRUSYHED you all!!!! Fensway Cntre is NEXT dogahoe too FALL!!!

[itchy]

I drew up a list of 27 Site Restoration Tasks, and met with MA DOT Deputy Secretary Peter O’Connor, and later MA DOT Secretary Jeff Mullan, to urge faster progress. They accepted the task list, and slowly pursued it for a while. But over the last 1-1/2 years, only 7 of those tasks were finished. With 20 of the 27 tasks still un-assigned, un-scheduled, and un-started, at this rate, restoration won’t finish until February 2013 — 17 years after Columbus Center was first proposed.

On 24 September 2009, four state legislators wrote to the MA DOT Secretary and asked that names and deadlines be assigned to each outstanding task so that the property can be restored to its 2005 condition — and put back out for competitive bids — much sooner than 2013, and so that tollpayers and taxpayers can get reimbursed for having to fund the 7-acre restoration at public expense.

As of 31 December 2009, those legislators had no progress to report from DOT.

Ned, are you the head of a state legislative committee? A state agency? What gives you the power to draw up "task lists" and demand that the state follow them? Can I draw up task lists for Gov. Patrick and expect groups of state legislators to follow up and ensure that they're followed? I'm sorry, but this sounds like a perversion of representative democracy, doesn't it?

[Beton Brut]

Welcome home, Itchy.

[itchy]

Thanks, Beton Brut.

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . What gives you the power to draw up "task lists"?

The U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution empower citizens to raise issues. I combined 27 issues into 1 list to facilitate research, review, discussion, decision-making, and execution.

. . . What gives you the power to . . . demand that the state follow them?

Re-read my message. I demanded nothing. I only urged consideration of each issue. (But since you asked, the answer to your question is that both Constitutions empower citizens to make demands of their governments.)

. . . Can I draw up task lists for Gov. Patrick?

Yes, you and he can do that. “Together we can” was his campaign slogan. You can draw up task lists not just for a governor, but also for anyone else who will listen to you. But before wasting your time creating a presentation, be sure you can even get an appointment in the first place.

. . . Can I . . . expect groups of state legislators to follow up and ensure that they're followed?

Yes, you can ask legislators to follow up. And yes, you can hope that they do. However, not every legislator does everything that every constituent asks. To get the results you desire, you have to research, document, and argue your case effectively.

I did exactly that.

The project owners, of course, refused their obligations. But so far, no other citizen, journalist, legislator, or transportation official has disagreed with any of the 27 tasks. Actually, everyone with whom I spoke appreciated the fact that someone bothered to organize a usable checklist.

. . . this sounds like a perversion of representative democracy, doesn't it?

No. It does not, and it is not. In fact, urging elected officials and agency leaders to consider doing what they are already empowered to do is a reinforcement of representative democracy.

You and other forum members who are interested in civics and who still think that Columbus Center is “a fine project” (forum member Ablarc) and “a great victory for the City!” (Palindrome) that “has NO negatives” (Barbaric Manchurian) might well ask each other — and also government officials:

How much did taxpayers lose . . .

• . . . when 43 city, state, and federal agencies pursued Columbus Center for 15 years?
• . . . when the City waived the Master Plan requirement for a 2-acre public park?
• . . . when the state decided not to use a fair market value property appraisal?
• . . . when the state decided not to collect the $12.2 million base rent as called for in the 2006 lease?
• . . . when the City waived property taxes for 19 years?
• . . . when the state waived income taxes?
• . . . when the state decided not to make the owners buy performance bonds?
• . . . when the state decided to allow a 30-year project schedule?
• . . . when the state decided to restore the abandoned 7-acre site itself?

And what precautions has the state enacted to prevent repeat failures, both at these 4 properties, and at 18 other I-90 corridor properties?

[statler]

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm152/GuitarDude215/1181911796832.gif

[bostonbred]

Iam SORY. BUT. You angry LOOSER side here beateing the Mr.Ned's horse until the hide is RAW!!! AND IT IS SORE. HE IS BEATEN YOU. SO. SURENDER YOUR HORSE NOW!!!

[bjamessuchy]

that's really naive. about the list writing thing.

[bostonbred]

Mr. Besamemucho Iam thinking that MR. Ned F. has the good listings of tasks and is VERRY orenized with the thoughts.

[Patriots_1228]

I have a secret feeling that Bostonbred is from springfield or worcester...

[Ned Flaherty]

Columbus Center: No solution in sight for this swath of the South End

January 22, 2010 • by Mary K. Pratt • Special to the Boston Business Journal

Like many of the city’s other major projects in the pipeline, the Columbus Center plans got sidelined when the economy crashed and financing for big developments dried up.

WinnDevelopment, part of the Boston-based WinnCos., initially spearheaded the project. But Alan Eisner, WinnDevelopment spokesman and president of Regan Communications Group, said WinnDevelopment is now a “significant but minor stakeholder” in the project.

That’s officially where it stands today.

“We’re waiting for the financial markets to improve,” Eisner said. He said all the parties are “working with the city and state to come up with a financial plan to move the project forward.”

However, Eisner wasn’t able to give a time line for the project.

“It all depends on the financial markets, being able to get sufficient financing on terms that are conducive to moving the project forward. That’s the subject of ongoing negotiations with financial institutions,” he said.

Eisner said he couldn’t comment on whether the scope of the project will change, and referred questions to the other stakeholders, The Beal Cos. and MacFarlane Partners.

The Beal Cos. declined to comment, and a spokesman for MacFarlane Partners said the firm was no longer involved and referred questions to Stockbridge Real Estate Funds in San Francisco.

Stockbridge did not respond to questions.

According to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the project is still on the books as it was approved in 2003. Any changes would have to be approved by not only the BRA but also the state’s Office of Transportation, which runs the Massachusetts Turnpike.

But at this point nothing new seems to be on the horizon.

“Unfortunately we’re stuck in a holding pattern right now,” said state Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, the Democrat from the Third Suffolk District. Michlewitz said it’s too early to tell what this year might bring at the site, but he indicated it’s not looking good.

“Optimism is at an all-time low just because of the stagnant nature of this entire project,” he said. “I think the time has come for us to either hold the developer to moving forward with the project or moving forward with the restoration.”

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2010/01/25/focus4.html

[Ned Flaherty]

The Boston Business Journal story above contains 3 errors, and overlooks 2 key points.

ERRORS

1. Incorrect cause • Boston Business Journal named the project’s cause of failure as the general economy. That is untrue. Columbus Center did not fail because of anything to do with the general economy. It failed because it never had the 40% investor funds and 60% bank loans that it claimed to have. Even during strong economies, it never had the funds needed to proceed.

2. Obsolete source • Boston Business Journal used a source that’s almost 2 years out of date. The Columbus Center proposal has not been managed by Winn, or Regan Communications, or Alan Eisner since summer 2008, when owner CalPERS-CUIP-MacFarlane took the project away from them and gave control to The Beal Companies, The Related Companies, and McDermott Ventures.

3. Obsolete information • Boston Business Journal reported Winn’s claim that “all the parties are working with the city and state” but failed to report that Winn’s claim hasn’t been true for a long time. City and state agencies say they ceased working on this proposal years ago. Moreover, no financial institution can engage in “ongoing negotiations” because before such negotiations can start, a project must meet the minimum commercial lending criteria (e.g., 40% cash from owners). This project never met the minimum criteria.

KEY POINTS

4. Confusion Among Owners •

• One partner (Winn) says another partner (MacFarlane) is an owner, but MacFarlane says it is not involved at all.
• One partner (Winn) is unaware of who the real owner (Stockbridge) is.
• One owner (MacFarlane) denies the involvement that another owner (Winn) says is continuing.
• The latest owner (Stockbridge) refuses to comment.

These are characteristics of a failed project.

5. New Owner’s role • After CalPERS-CUIP terminated MacFarlane’s contract in October 2009, Stockbridge bought the proposal, making it the tenth organization to lay claim to revenues and profits from Columbus Center, which is now in its 15th year of being re-proposed.

The new owner’s line of business tells it all: Stockbridge focuses on opportunistic leveraging of failed projects.

As recently as January 2008, Stockbridge employed 85 in-house investment and development professionals. Today, however, Stockbridge’s owners often answer their own phones, and the firm’s 1-page web site says only, “Our Web site is coming soon . . .” (www.SBFund.com).

That makes Columbus Center’s ultimate prognosis grimmer than ever, not just because the original venture never was able to succeed, and not just because it keeps changing hands (Winn ➜ California-CUIP-MacFarlane; then California-CUIP-MacFarlane ➜ Beal-Related; then Beal-Related ➜ Stockbridge), but because the newest owner, Stockbridge, appears to be as resource-starved as the failed projects in which it specializes.

[ablarc]

Is Ned starting to make sense?

Or did he all along, and we never noticed?

I still wish someone would build this thing; scar needs plastic surgery.

[PlanBoston]

Is Ned starting to make sense?

Or did he all along, and we never noticed?

I still wish someone would build this thing; scar needs plastic surgery.

He just decided to make rational points this time. Even if an excellent plan were proposed, Ned would be there making sure it doesn't ever get built.

[tobyjug]

My guess is that but for 9/11, there might have been enough market froth to fund this project. It is no coincidence that the decade of the 00's was one of the worst in the last 100 years.

I believe this project will not be built in the next 20 years, if ever. (I hope I am wrong.) When money becomes available for financing, it will chase the easiest to build, lowest cost, most profitible opportunities. Any of our readers could name 5 spots in 10 seconds.

Public subsidy is the only thing that would help a developer to make back points in a deal. Even if the political will remains, which I doubt, that subsidy money isn't there, and won't be for a long time.

To sum up, the social and profit motives that get things built are missing. Fail. Flunk out.

[JohnAKeith]

You mean 9/11/08, right?

[sidewalks]

Exactly^

I'm not going to debate Ned about this issue, but if this project had been approved in 2003 or 2004 I think it would have been built.

[tobyjug]

You mean 9/11/08, right?

No. There were projects ready to go in 2001 that had funding yanked right after 9/11/01. By the time financing reappeared 2 or 3 years later, constuction commenced and they were completed just in time for today's market. They sit with large vacancy rates, some are auction block fodder, and most will be a drag on the market for some time to come.

But for 9/11/01, there might have been enough liquidity and consumer exuberance for a winning gamble on a project like Columbus Center.

[czsz]

You mean to tell me the terrorists destroyed this tower, too!? Bastards.

[tobyjug]

Collateral damage from the altered economic wave frequency.

[JohnAKeith]

The vision: Massachusetts Turnpike proposal to cover highway from Brookline to Chinatown, Year 2000

http://johnakeithrealestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mass_pike_proposal_sm.png

For a larger, full-sized image, click here:

http://johnakeithrealestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mass_pike_proposal.png

[Cojapo]

10 years and nothing. Sad.

[czsz]

I wonder if Ned Flaherty throws darts at that.

[tobyjug]

Does make you wonder how they would handle all the diesel train and motor vehicle exhaust though!

[ablarc]

^ Well, how do they handle all that at the Big Dig?

[JSic]

I'd love to believe that we get towers at parcels 22+23 but somehow I doubt it...

[BostonYoureMyHome]

I wonder if Ned Flaherty throws darts at that.

For his next targeted assault on growth in the city?

Great ULI panel last night discussing city waterfronts. A planner from Vancouver discussed the importance of strategic density in a CITY. That's right a CITY. Last I heard Boston was a CITY and you had to head out of the CITY to experience suburban life.

[tobyjug]

^ Well, how do they handle all that at the Big Dig?

Ventilation shafts, of course. I wonder where, and what effect the train has, if any.

[ablarc]

^ I guess the question was rhetorical.

[tobyjug]

And a little inarticulate on my part.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

And I think in general they did a good job with the vent shafts. They'renot eyesores, though they're probably another reason the Big Dig was overbudget.

(I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of people with actual architectural training/backgrounds).

[kennedy]

No background. But the only one that isn't an eyesore is surrounded by the Intercontinental Hotel.

[ablarc]

The amoeba of glass.

[statler]

^^ That makes it sound more interesting than it really is.

[tobyjug]

Paramecium? Blancmange? Anyway, Russia Wharf frames and contains it nicely. Maybe that was the plan all along.

[ablarc]

^^ That makes it sound more interesting than it really is.
Shucks, and I thought I had captured its true ennui.

[czsz]

I think Ned was asked to weigh in on the poisonous gases trapped underground by the Big Dig before, but declined to comment before his head exploded.

[Waldorf]

^ Well, how do they handle all that at the Big Dig?

DA PEEPLES are all DED on the GRAINWay b/C old uNKLE sas SMOKES from aUTOs. THEN OLD uNKLE throws cigARRETE at me. DO YOU see PEEPELs on the GrainWAY !!! ??? PaSSersbyes saw only a wisp of smoke from chimney and continue !!!

[ablarc]

See: bb is actually Waldorf!

A chameleon: hey Waldorf, weren't you once Cobalt or someone?

[kennedy]

Aha!

[KentXie]

Down to its last chance
Developers’ delays and funding woes spur the state to serve notice on Columbus Center, the $800m complex planned to span the Pike
By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | February 10, 2010

Massachusetts transportation officials have begun severing ties with the developers of Columbus Center, the latest, and perhaps last, chapter in one of the most ambitious and controversial projects in Boston’s development history.

The state Department of Transportation yesterday told the project’s developers they are in default of their 99-year lease, after stalling on plans to build an $800 million complex above the Massachusetts Turnpike that would have united the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods.

The developers face termination of the lease not only because they have failed to complete construction, but because they have not properly maintained the property, said a top agency official. He asked that his name not be used because the default notice is not yet public.

Because of funding problems, the developers - the WinnCompanies and the California state pension fund, known as Calpers - stopped construction in April 2008 on the six-building complex of condominiums, hotel, stores, and parks on a massive deck over the highway. Since then, they have neither cleaned up nor secured the building site to the level the state has demanded, according to the transportation official with knowl edge of the situation.

The default notice initiates a 30-day period during which Winn and Calpers can devise a plan to begin construction. If they don’t, or the new plan isn’t satisfactory to state officials, they will lose their lease.

WinnCompanies, which initially won the development designation in 1997, did not return a phone call seeking comment. A spokesman for Calpers said officials are still evaluating prospects for the development and could not comment further.

The transportation official said the default notice is intended to either force Winn and Calpers forward or bring closure to a fitful 13-year process in which the developers had numerous false starts, and their relationship with neighbors grew increasingly contentious as the site remained fallow and unkempt.

“We stopped getting cooperation from the developers, and there was only so much the transportation department could do,’’ said state Representative Aaron Michlewitz, a Boston Democrat whose district includes much of the Columbus Center site. “We need to go back to square one and see what other opportunities might be out there for this property.’’

State transportation officials told the Globe they decided to send the default notice after the developers started clearing debris and doing other work last fall, but then abruptly stopped, without explanation.

The impasse prompted state lawmakers who represent the area to press the Patrick administration to terminate the development arrangement. The lawmakers met with Patrick officials in October and again recently to press their case.

“The neighbors have just been stuck in limbo for a really long time,’’ said state Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat whose district includes the construction site. “It’s been delay upon delay, so I’m thrilled [the transportation department] is sending the default letter.’’

If the state does end the lease with Winn and Calpers, officials said the transportation agency will first complete a cleanup of the construction lots along the highway near Columbus Avenue. It’s unclear how much that would cost or who would pay for it, since the now-defunct Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which originally leased the property, did not secure collateral from the developers for such situations.

Then officials will consider whether to solicit new proposals for the property, most of which is air rights over the turnpike between Arlington and Clarendon streets. However they cautioned that process will take time, in part because the market for large developments remains slow, and in particular because of the extreme cost of building the turnpike platform, which at one point was estimated to cost more than $200 million.

It was ultimately the grandiose scale of Columbus Center that made it so difficult to build. When first conceived in the late 1990s, the complex was estimated to cost $300 million. But as the developers encountered delays, inflation took its toll, and the cost of the massive deck in particular mounted.

With the price tag hitting the $800 million mark, Columbus Center lost a key funder, the Anglo Irish Bank, in late 2007, and never recovered. The Patrick administration also withdrew about $40 million in public funds for the project after private financing fell through.

While Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino remained a supporter of Columbus Center, a spokeswoman said the city supports the state’s move to reconsider plans for the property.

“Given the economic realities, it makes a lot of sense,’’ said Boston Redevelopment Authority spokeswoman Susan Elsbree. “It’s the right time to revisit this project.’’

State Representative Martha Walz, whose district abuts the project, said any new public bidding process should require the developer to hew to guidelines established for the property in the 1990s. Those guidelines called for smaller-scale development than Columbus Center’s developers were allowed.

“They may get some very positive creative ideas,’’ Walz said.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/10/down_to_its_last_chance?mode=PF

[Ned Flaherty]

Columbus Center plan on the ropes
One of the most ambitious development proposals in Boston history may be history.



Down to its last chance

Developers’ delays and funding woes spur the state to serve notice on Columbus Center, the $800m complex planned to span the Pike

By Casey Ross • Globe Staff • February 10, 2010

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Lastchance-1.jpg

The Columbus Center project, now abandoned, was to be built over part of the Massachusetts Turnpike. This is an overhead view from the parking garage on Clarendon Street. The massive development of shops, condos, and parks was planned for a platform near the Mass. Turnpike.



http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Lastchance-2.jpg
A rendering of the Columbus Center highlights the ambition of the plan. Some urge a smaller-scale complex.



http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Lastchance-3.jpg


Massachusetts transportation officials have begun severing ties with the developers of Columbus Center, the latest, and perhaps last, chapter in one of the most ambitious and controversial projects in Boston’s development history.

The state Department of Transportation yesterday told the project’s developers they are in default of their 99-year lease, after stalling on plans to build an $800 million complex above the Massachusetts Turnpike that would have united the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods.

The developers face termination of the lease not only because they have failed to complete construction, but because they have not properly maintained the property, said a top agency official. He asked that his name not be used because the default notice is not yet public.

Because of funding problems, the developers — the WinnCompanies and the California state pension fund, known as Calpers — stopped construction in April 2008 on the six-building complex of condominiums, hotel, stores, and parks on a massive deck over the highway. Since then, they have neither cleaned up nor secured the building site to the level the state has demanded, according to the transportation official with knowl edge of the situation.

The default notice initiates a 30-day period during which Winn and Calpers can devise a plan to begin construction. If they don’t, or the new plan isn’t satisfactory to state officials, they will lose their lease.

WinnCompanies, which initially won the development designation in 1997, did not return a phone call seeking comment. A spokesman for Calpers said officials are still evaluating prospects for the development and could not comment further.

The transportation official said the default notice is intended to either force Winn and Calpers forward or bring closure to a fitful 13-year process in which the developers had numerous false starts, and their relationship with neighbors grew increasingly contentious as the site remained fallow and unkempt.

“We stopped getting cooperation from the developers, and there was only so much the transportation department could do,” said state Representative Aaron Michlewitz, a Boston Democrat whose district includes much of the Columbus Center site. “We need to go back to square one and see what other opportunities might be out there for this property.”

State transportation officials told the Globe they decided to send the default notice after the developers started clearing debris and doing other work last fall, but then abruptly stopped, without explanation.

The impasse prompted state lawmakers who represent the area to press the Patrick administration to terminate the development arrangement. The lawmakers met with Patrick officials in October and again recently to press their case.

“The neighbors have just been stuck in limbo for a really long time,’’ said state Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat whose district includes the construction site. “It’s been delay upon delay, so I’m thrilled [the transportation department] is sending the default letter.”

If the state does end the lease with Winn and Calpers, officials said the transportation agency will first complete a cleanup of the construction lots along the highway near Columbus Avenue. It’s unclear how much that would cost or who would pay for it, since the now-defunct Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which originally leased the property, did not secure collateral from the developers for such situations.

Then officials will consider whether to solicit new proposals for the property, most of which is air rights over the turnpike between Arlington and Clarendon streets. However they cautioned that process will take time, in part because the market for large developments remains slow, and in particular because of the extreme cost of building the turnpike platform, which at one point was estimated to cost more than $200 million.

It was ultimately the grandiose scale of Columbus Center that made it so difficult to build. When first conceived in the late 1990s, the complex was estimated to cost $300 million. But as the developers encountered delays, inflation took its toll, and the cost of the massive deck in particular mounted.

With the price tag hitting the $800 million mark, Columbus Center lost a key funder, the Anglo Irish Bank, in late 2007, and never recovered. The Patrick administration also withdrew about $40 million in public funds for the project after private financing fell through.

While Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino remained a supporter of Columbus Center, a spokeswoman said the city supports the state’s move to reconsider plans for the property.

“Given the economic realities, it makes a lot of sense,’’ said Boston Redevelopment Authority spokeswoman Susan Elsbree. “It’s the right time to revisit this project.”

State Representative Martha Walz, whose district abuts the project, said any new public bidding process should require the developer to hew to guidelines established for the property in the 1990s. Those guidelines called for smaller-scale development than Columbus Center’s developers were allowed.

“They may get some very positive creative ideas,” Walz said.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/10/down_to_its_last_chance/#end

[KentXie]

^^Why did you post the same article that's already posted?

[TheRifleman]

This is my theory. Governer Patrick will throw some state money or Federal Stimilus money to clean up this project especially if he can gain Union support going into Nov Elections. It depends on how deep the connections go but they might even throw a bone to Hynes if he can get his project off the ground.
But besides that this site will end up being auctioned off to the highest bidder in the future.

[ablarc]

I guess they could build another parking garage, like the one a short distance west.

[palindrome]

time to shit or get off the pot.

[Ned Flaherty]

^^Why did you post the same article that's already posted?

I posted the full article as published by the Boston Globe in both the hard-copy broadsheet and the web site, whereas you omitted 6 of the story’s key components: the sub-headline, photograph, caption #1, rendering, caption #2, and the crucial 10-year time line. Your post doesn’t indicate that these 6 parts are missing, so readers of your post think that they saw the whole story, and think that there’s no need to click the link. Only readers of my post are guaranteed to see the entire story.

[KentXie]

I posted the full article as published by the Boston Globe in both the hard-copy broadsheet and the web site, whereas you omitted 6 of the story’s key components: the sub-headline, photograph, caption #1, rendering, caption #2, and the crucial 10-year time line. Your post doesn’t indicate that these 6 parts are missing, so readers of your post think that they saw the whole story, and think that there’s no need to click the link. Only readers of my post are guaranteed to see the entire story.

You could just have posted the graphic instead of reposting the whole story and wasting space. In fact, didn't you criticize briv for doing the same a long time ago? Seems kind of hypocritical now huh?

Oh and I posted it when it came out. At that time, there was no picture of CC or any of your additional information. Also my post did include a sub-headline. It's bold if you didn't see it.

[Ned Flaherty]

You could just have posted the graphic instead of reposting the whole story . . .

No. Posting 2 partial stories just worsens the original problem. The only way to post a single, entire story, with nothing omitted, is to do what I did.

. . . when it came out . . . there was no picture of CC or any of your additional information.

Untrue. The photos did exist when you made your post; you just didn’t know where to go to get them. You do not have complete coverage of any Globe story unless you check all 5 editions: hard-copy, web, electronic, Kindle, and Reader. They are different.

. . . my post did include a sub-headline. . .

The story has 2 sub-headlines. Your post included only 1 of them. My post included both.

[KentXie]

No. Posting 2 partial stories just worsens the original problem. The only way to post a single, entire story, with nothing omitted, is to do what I did.


Then why did you criticize briv for doing the same a while back and say that he was wasting space?

[Shepard]

You do not have complete coverage of any Globe story unless you check all 5 editions: hard-copy, web, electronic, Kindle, and Reader. They are different.

This makes the Boston Globe sound like the Bible. Don't quote a verse until you've cross-checked the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and King James!

No matter what version of the Boston Globe you read you probably don't have the complete coverage.

[Ron Newman]

This is a silly argument. Let's discuss what the article actually says.

[statler]

^^This thread would be about 3 pages long if not for silly arguments.

[czsz]

Why the fuck are you people focused on the length of a repost of the article when the CONTENT of that article details how Ned's whining ("the neighbors have been in limbo") is driving the nail in the coffin of this project?

Boo hoo, there is some construction debris impeding your pristinely landscaped view of a multilane interstate. Maybe it wouldn't be there IF IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT.

[kz1000ps]

R.I.P.

Can a mod spare us all and just lock this thread? I mean, there's nothing more to be said.

[pelhamhall]

There is a lot more to be said. This is Boston after all.

What I find most interesting is that Beal/Related had a look at the books and have also decided that it is not finance-able or build-able as planned. They would know since they are in the middle of marketing the next door Clarendon.

Look out for a larger project to be proposed here someday. This failure is the proof that only taller, bigger and denser can work on a site like this.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I agree this won't be the last we've heard but I am for closing this thread and starting a new one when the next beast rears it's head for mighty St. Ned to slay!

[ablarc]

Look out for a larger project to be proposed here someday. This failure is the proof that only taller, bigger and denser can work on a site like this.
The truth unvarnished.

Who can deny this?

[Beton Brut]

This failure is the proof that only taller, bigger and denser can work on a site like this.

Indeed.

Could we have something like this (http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6117/retrieveassetcaauo62wzh9.jpg), please?

[Boston02124]

Is that Chicago or Oaklahoma city?

[kennedy]

One of the proposals for San Francisco's Transbay Center. I think it's the winning design, but chances are, it will get dumbed down. I can't remember which architect it was. SOM or Libeskind maybe?

[Ned Flaherty]

Several of the cheerleaders are still getting it all wrong.

. . . whining ("the neighbors have been in limbo") is driving the nail in the coffin of this project . . .

No. It isn’t. The proposal died because the owners never really had the $340 million in cash and $510 million in loans that they claimed to have, and they couldn’t buy the insurance that state officials wisely required. The lead owner was the California pension plan, looking to invest $245 billion when it decided to buy Columbus Center back in 2005, but even that deep-pocketed organization always refused to release the funds needed to proceed. The proposal didn’t die because some neighbors complained about debris. It died because the current owners chose, 2006 — 2009, to let it die.

. . . just lock this thread . . . there's nothing more to be said.

Columbus Center is Boston’s longest running urban planning failure, so this thread is far more informative and educational than most others. It’s well worth keeping, especially for the years of potential litigation that will finally inform all those who never knew what was going on. Visitors who only want to read about issue-free proposals and to cheerlead will never be satisfied by this thread, but rather than keep crying “stop the posts!” and “lock the thread!” they should just seek their Happy Meals elsewhere, and let those who can learn from reading here continue in peace.

There is a lot more to be said . . . This failure is the proof that only taller, bigger and denser can work on a site like this.

No, this failure doesn’t prove anything of the sort. The proposal died because the owners either never had the cash they claimed to have, or else had it but refused to risk it. Either way, they never met commercial lending criteria, and never obtained all the approvals required to start. Adding more square feet would do nothing to fix that. The proposal didn’t die because it wasn’t big enough; it died because the business plan — “claim to have the cash, then get it from the government later when no one’s looking” — got unmasked.

The proposal died not because of local debris, or too much review, or inadequate size. It died because what the owners proposed to do was the opposite of what they intended to do, and was the opposite of what they did.

[Beton Brut]

This was SOM's Transbay proposal. Their scheme lost out to Cesar Pelli's boring retread (http://condodomain.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/transbay-terminal.jpg) of his own Hong Kong World Financial Center (http://jpcoleman.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/hongkong.jpg).

I chose the SOM proposal because the design stands on four huge super-columns (like a modern interpretation of the Eiffel Tower or this unbuilt Paul Rudolph project (http://www.gibson-design.com/prj-rudolph-harbour.html)). I think it could be adapted to span the Pike without the construction of an expensive deck.

[armpitsOFmight]

Congratulations Ned! You totally kicked everybody's ass! But I need to warn you that the Scientologists are coming to town and you're going to have to deal with them when they want to erect Hubbard Place in the Back Bay/South End area. Their army of lawyers will crush you!

[Suffolk 83]

I chose the SOM proposal because the design stands on four huge super-columns (like a modern interpretation of the Eiffel Tower or this unbuilt Paul Rudolph project). I think it could be adapted to span the Pike without the construction of an expensive deck.

I like it... here's to something new getting approved in 5 years, bigger and even less to Ned's liking.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I've locked this thread. CC is dead and it's grave is being danced upon. No doubt someday another project will come along, or maybe even CC will become a zombie. But no matter, this thread has been a slime pit for long enough. This thread is closed. If there is any other NEWS about the CC then go here: News ONLY CC Thread. (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2855)

This thread will, fortunately or unfortunately, be around as an archive.

[KentXie]

Well the project is officially dead now. The NIMBYs got the open space they wanted. I hope they enjoy that canyon size "open space" because that's the only thing they will get for the next decade.

[JohnAKeith]

I'm having the last word, your thread-closing didn't work!

Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers
by John Keith South End News Contributor
Thursday Aug 14, 2008

An opportunity to stitch back together a deep tear in the urban fabric was lost with the failed Columbus Center project, the proposed $800 million, mixed-use complex to be built on decks constructed over the Massachusetts Turnpike. After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else. It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.

How could this possibly happen? How could a project that was so far along in the process unravel at the last minute, after construction had already started?

There is plenty of blame to spread around, beginning with the company that first proposed the development.

It looks as though Arthur Winn and his WinnDevelopment never secured the money needed to complete the project. According to published reports, the developer missed two deadlines earlier this year by which it was supposed to have proved to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority that it had raised $500 million (it did prove it had at least half that). But, trouble was brewing long before then.

Back in 1996, the developer proposed a subsidy-free project, but soon after it received its first approvals, it began reaching out for taxpayer money. Meanwhile, its financing began to fall apart. Major investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew more than $500 million in commitments as early as 2006. The next year, the real estate subsidiary run by investment partner CalPERS (now "owner of record" on the project and "leasee" of the Turnpike air rights lease) threatened to pull out unless the state guaranteed public assistance. In early 2007, the developers came to the state asking for help; but by April 2008, they hit a brick wall, failing to make it to round two in their quest for a $10 million MORE (Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion) grant. Not long after, MassHousing, the state’s affordable housing agency, withdrew its promise of another $20 million. When asked, the city of Boston, which had already committed $14 million in incentives and tax credits, said, "No more."

Meanwhile, at the same time it was knocking on doors in search of funds, the developer faced a rapidly increasing budget, due to rising labor and material costs. The project had an estimated cost of $300 million when it was proposed in 1996, but that has ballooned to the now estimated $800 million. It sure didn’t help things when the credit crisis hit the commercial markets and residential real estate sales imploded.

If Mr. Winn had been able to pull things together, it would have been possible to ignore the constant drone of complaints from a small but vocal group of residents, neighbors and politicians, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But, he didn’t, it wasn’t, and we are.

The Columbus Center was more than just "luxury condos." It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks - the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much - their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

Blame also lies at the feet of our local elected officials. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, South End State Representative Byron Rushing and Back Bay State Representative Marty Walz each spoke out against public financing for Columbus Center, in effect dooming its chances to move forward.

Ironically, at the same time they were expressing astonishment at the very idea of public funds going to a private company, they were supporting legislation that handed out millions (actually, billions) of dollars in subsidies to other projects across the Commonwealth.

For example, Reps. DiMasi and Walz approved $60 million in state spending and incentives to help "persuade" drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb to move to Massachusetts. They’ve both heaped praise on the Massachusetts film-credit incentive program, which the Department of Revenue estimates has cost the state $120 million over the past three years. And just this spring, all three voted in favor of the $1 billion life sciences bill, which authorizes $500 million in borrowed capital spending, an additional $250 million in grants, and another $250 million in tax incentives.

Yet, when it came to helping out someone in their own backyard, our representatives defied logic and suddenly clammed up and clamped down. It’s all well and good to argue against public subsidies on principle, but don’t pull it out as an excuse only when it’s politically expedient or personally beneficial.

What have residents lost, as a result of the project’s failure? Property tax revenues (eventually; the city had promised forgiveness of much of it during the first years), jobs, homes, parks, parking spaces and the conveniences of local shops, for starters. In addition, WinnDevelopment would have been required to include affordable-housing units as part of any new construction or make a significant financial payment into the city’s low-cost housing fund. These community benefits are all gone.

But, this is all water under the bridge, or decks, as it were. I, for one, have given up on the project. One small request, though. Mr. Winn, don’t feel any rush to clean up your construction site; please leave it as is - an enduring testament to the lost chances and broken dreams that define the development process in Boston in the 21st century.

[KentXie]

There was a commenter on boston.com saying that the construction of CC will increase car traffic and FOOT TRAFFIC. He then continues by saying that it is out of scale. Comments like these make me lose faith in Boston. Foot traffic! This guy wants Boston to be a deserted wasteland. And how is it out of scale? The projects sits within the Green and Orange Line, the commuter rails, and bus 39.

[stellarfun]

Article in the Globe. No quote from Ned.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/03/11/columbus_center_developer_pulls_the_plug/

Globe picture, one of the better ones of the site.
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2010/03/10/1268278411_4065/539w.jpg

Herald article.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/20100311mass_pike_project_crashes_developer_leaves _mess_quits_800m_columbus_center_plan/srvc=home&position=5

[AmericanFolkLegend]

State Representative Martha Walz, whose legislative district borders the site, said any new plans should comport with a planning document devised by the community in the 1990s that calls for parks and low to midrise buildings.

Marty Walz is an economic dynamo. Columbus Center's economics didn't work (CC was to be less dense than Copley btw). Marty's solution: Strip it down. Add some parks. Take out the lucrative office portion. There. That should pay for itself.

[aquaman]

13 years and all we have is a chain link fence surrounding an open pit over a highway. What the heck is wrong with the building process in this town? (rheotrical question, we all know the answers)

[vanshnookenraggen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0waNRaz6wU

[TheRifleman]

We'll I think we can forgive Dianne Wilkerson for stuffing her Bra for the bribes on this development. Every man or woman jumping off the Titantic. Filenes, Columbus are toast. Fan Pier is looking like a bust. IMHO Russia Wharf will be the only successful one of these four. Can't wait to see what's in the pipeline for future developments

Congress St? Doubt it.
Aquarim Garage? Too many Shadows

Boston development is looking very GRIM these days.

[statler]

Which is a shame considering the boom time the rest of the world's cities are enjoying.

[TheRifleman]

Which is a shame considering the boom time the rest of the world's cities are enjoying.

Boston is defintely going Backwards. It depends how bad this recession gets but if we end up in a depression we might see some colleges start going bankrupt which could make Boston less desirable. We are living in some very interesting times.

[statler]

I will say this. Boston didn't take full advantage of the good times while they were here.

Perhaps lessons will be learned?

[Shepard]

How many NIMBYs does it take to change a lightbulb?

[TheRifleman]

How many NIMBYs does it take to change a lightbulb?

Is that after they give a quote for the job. LOL

[Shepard]

It doesn't matter how much it's going to cost. Open space is better in the dark anyway (less riff-raff).

[Arborway]

How many NIMBYs does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. Artificial lighting is out of character for a site around the corner from the Hancock building, and if someone walked in front of it, there might be a shadow cast.

[Shepard]

That's right. And what if I told you my astounding observation that the person walking in front of it is not only causing shadows, but is also contributing to (heaven forbid) foot traffic? That's totally out of character with the prevailing highway environment.

[KentXie]

I will say this. Boston didn't take full advantage of the good times while they were here.

Perhaps lessons will be learned?

How ironic, Boston, a history-rich city, can't learn from its past.

I guess those that have no history or identity can go out and make one for themselves while those that do are stuck as they are.

[stellarfun]

Which is a shame considering the boom time the rest of the world's cities are enjoying.
The rest of the world's cities -- other than perhaps China -- are not enjoying a boom. Even Dubai, which had to be bailed out by Abu Dhabi, is experiencing a big slowdown.

There were far too many commercial office buildings proposed for downtown Boston, and too few prospective tenants to fill them. And how much of a market in Boston is there for new condos priced at $600, $800, $1,000 a sq ft?

[statler]

Sorry, that was sarcasm.

[GW2500]

I think another major factor in the death of this is that it went from $ 300 million in 03 to $800 million in 08. I feel that construction, health care, and higher education costs are just inflating at unsustanable rates almost exponentially. I'm no expert and this is a total guess, but if this were to have been built in 1995 it would have cost significantly less and finding funding might have actually happened. It's important to note that '95 wasn't that long ago.

[ablarc]

Sorry, that was sarcasm.
You need to whip out the emoticons. ;) :)

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I think another major factor in the death of this is that it went from $ 300 million in 03 to $800 million in 08.

You have too much faith in the developers numbers. They have incentives to low ball the cost when they're trying to get permits (so it seems feasible) and high ball the cost when it's construction time (so they can get subsidies). For a public sector example, see: The Big Dig.

[golodhendil]

The rest of the world's cities -- other than perhaps China -- are not enjoying a boom. Even Dubai, which had to be bailed out by Abu Dhabi, is experiencing a big slowdown.

There were far too many commercial office buildings proposed for downtown Boston, and too few prospective tenants to fill them. And how much of a market in Boston is there for new condos priced at $600, $800, $1,000 a sq ft? In Toronto, there are currently 3 dozen condos, 4 five-star hotels, and 4 office towers that are at various stages of construction or recently completed in the past year. At least 5 major residential/mixed-used projects are about to / just got off the ground, and a few more office towers are in the planning/preleasing stage. Other than a research building that's on hold but likely to restart in the next couple of months, and a major mixed-use project that was brought down by Lehman's collapse but is now restarting, there were few to no significant cancellations or stalling due to the recession. Even for transit, Toronto's weakest link, we are seeing 3-4 light rail lines and 1-2 subway extensions that are starting / started recently. I would certainly qualify that as a sign of booming.

[stellarfun]

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/03/11/21/5W12CALPERS.xlgraphic.prod_affiliate.4.gif

Article in Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/12/2601696/california-public-pension-funds.html

The question is where did the $120 million go? There was no land acquisition costs to speak of, A/E costs could not be that excessive, the construction that was actually started probably cost no more than $10 million. There is only so much money you can stuff into brassieres, although some lawyers and some banks could have have gotten pig-at-the-trough fees. I still think the steel for the deck was ordered, and that was the biggest cost. The steel is probably still out there, -- in China.

[itchy]

I think another major factor in the death of this is that it went from $ 300 million in 03 to $800 million in 08. I feel that construction, health care, and higher education costs are just inflating at unsustanable rates almost exponentially.

That's true, and it's because when you're a consumer (i.e., a developer, patient or student) in any of these areas, you're about 10 steps removed from the actual costs.

As a developer, you pay for everything via leverage, or debt. You have no skin in the game.

As a patient, either your insurance company or the state pays for everything for you. You have no skin in the game.

As a student, you take out loans backed by the government at attractive rates and with no real penalties for not paying (I didn't pay a dime for 3 years after college). You have no skin in the game.

When the prices people pay for things are divorced from their actual costs, you move into the realm of Monopoly money, where inflation can be ludicrously high and no one will ever know the difference.

Basically, expect inflation to continue apace, no matter how bad the economy is or how little money people actually have, as long as people keep getting the financing to pay for these things.

Cooling those areas of inflation would mean that banks can't keep flooding the construction market with loans (check), healthcare prices paid by people need to do a better job reflecting healthcare costs by getting the funny money from insurers and especially government out (double-plus non-check, Mr Obama), and the government needs to stop pouring easy-loan money into higher ed (another double-plus uncheck, Mr Obama). The banks have rolled up their construction financing, and we are seeing construction costs go down as a result. As for healthcare and education, the Democrats think easy money for everything solves society's problems. Unfortunately, it just makes those things unaffordable without some source of Monopoly money.

[czsz]

In Toronto, there are currently 3 dozen condos, 4 five-star hotels, and 4 office towers that are at various stages of construction or recently completed in the past year. At least 5 major residential/mixed-used projects are about to / just got off the ground, and a few more office towers are in the planning/preleasing stage. Other than a research building that's on hold but likely to restart in the next couple of months, and a major mixed-use project that was brought down by Lehman's collapse but is now restarting, there were few to no significant cancellations or stalling due to the recession. Even for transit, Toronto's weakest link, we are seeing 3-4 light rail lines and 1-2 subway extensions that are starting / started recently. I would certainly qualify that as a sign of booming.

Canada has almost completely escaped the recession due to better regulations of banks and finance outlets and a generally more risk-averse culture.

The most affected sectors are those tied closely to exports to the US, like the lumber industry. So Vancouver, where forestry is king, is hurting pretty bad vis-a-vis Toronto and the energy sector cities of Alberta.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

As a developer, you pay for everything via leverage, or debt. You have no skin in the game.

As far as I can tell, CalPERs and Winn lost money on this. Not a single bank.
Anglo-Irish made committments to this, but then cut off funding precisely because the bank had no skin in the game.

[JohnAKeith]

Did you feel the earth tilt a little bit off its axis, this afternoon? That was when Shirley Kressel, Ned Flaherty and I all spoke at today's City Council meeting ... and all ON THE SAME SIDE of an issue. It's like when Batman met Superman.

[ablarc]

^ And what did you all agree on?

[JohnAKeith]

1) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company does not deserve TIF funding.

Left open for future discussion, am I awesome?

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Fair enough John. As long as you didn't claim you were speaking for anyone.

[kz1000ps]

Future of Columbus Center site up in air

By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / March 14, 2010

On the death of Boston’s Columbus Center project, architect M. David Lee said there is a simple lesson to learn from the tortured effort to build over the Massachusetts Turnpike: “Sometimes,’’ he said, “you just can’t make a racehorse out of a mule.’’

Straddling eight highway lanes and wedged between two Boston neighborhoods with persnickety residents, the location of the now-abandoned Columbus Center project has seemingly fatal flaws. A deck required to support the complex of condominiums, a hotel, shops, and parks proved prohibitively expensive, and drawn-out battles to get city and state approvals caused costs to mount over time.

And so public officials now confront dwindling options as they consider the future of the air-rights property: build in small chunks, with single buildings instead of entire blocks, or else be prepared to cough up hefty subsidies to pay for a multiple-block development like Columbus Center.

On Wednesday, the project’s main financial backer, the California State Pension Fund, or Calpers, said the $800 million complex was not economically feasible. The grand vision was first proposed 13 years ago by developer Arthur Winn, but by the end he had been relegated to the role of silent, minority partner. The state is now trying to get Calpers to pay for a $4 million to $5 million cleanup of the site, while also considering how to find new developers for the property, or whether it’s even worth doing so in the near term.

Peter O’Connor, head of real estate for the Massachusetts Transportation Department, wants to begin discussing the property’s future with neighbors and city officials right away. But there seems to be little support for another massive development in the mold of Columbus Center. So, he said, the state may consider dividing the site, which covers four separate parcels, and soliciting proposals for each plot.

Lee, who chaired a city committee in the 1990s that crafted a vision for developing air rights over the turnpike, said the only party that might be able to take advantage of them now is a hospital or university whose goal is being at a prominent location, instead of making a profit.

Otherwise, he said, the best option now would be to run a design competition in which architects and urban planners brainstorm ideas for improving the property’s appearance in the short term.

“Until the real estate market returns, you could try to do something creative with landscaping or art to mitigate the stark, utilitarian fencing along that part of the highway,’’ Lee said, adding: “For a private developer, the only way to make a project work there is either to have subsidy or density.’’

The other major turnpike air-rights development underway in Boston is a similarly large complex of buildings near Fenway Park by developer John Rosenthal. Fenway Center, as it’s known, is different from its defunct counterpart in many ways, with one particularly critical difference: 55 percent of the project will be built on land, compared with just 5 percent for Columbus Center. Moreover, drawing a lesson from Columbus Center, state officials devised a financial mechanism to help pay the added cost of building a deck for Rosenthal.

Rosenthal expects to break ground on the first part of his five-building project this summer. As for the future of the Columbus Center site, he said, it doesn’t look promising, especially after a 13-year process that ended so horribly for its backers, who dumped about $130 million into the failed effort.

“Pioneers often end up with arrows in their backs,’’ he said. “Everyone learned a lot from Columbus Center going first. But in the end, I think very few air-rights projects will ever get built.’’

Rosenthal believes breaking the parcel into smaller chunks may work, as developers would face less expensive decks. “A combination of retail and apartments could be possible,’’ Rosenthal said. “But it’s so unpredictable because of the swings in the markets. It really just comes down to luck and timing.’’

According to most people who followed Columbus Center, those are two things the project never had. The turnpike parcels themselves may have missed their one moment in time, when the exuberance of a building boom gave rise to an impossibly costly and complicated project, only to have it fall to the earth with the crashing economy.

One lesson Columbus Center taught developers and state officials is that the air rights — once thought to be worth millions of dollars because of their location in the city — actually have negative worth because of the exorbitant building costs.

If anything, Columbus Center, at 1.4 million square feet, was too small to justify the $200 million deck required for its buildings, said Bill McCall, founder of McCall & Almy, a Boston firm that advises commercial developers. At that price, the developments above the deck need to be much larger if builders are to recover their investment and make a profit.

“If you have got that added cost, it really requires a bigger project to cover the extra expense,’’ said McCall. “You need a strong economy to be able to tackle an air-rights project like that.’’

But McCall, Lee, and others argued that the demise of Columbus Center signals the end — for now — of the mega-project.

“Architecture and design as well as development in Boston has been on drunken binge for a while,’’ said Lee. “We have been building exorbitant projects that are quite fanciful. It’s time to pull back and be more thoughtful — celebrate the prosaic a little more. Not every building has to be an object building.’’

Link (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/03/14/future_of_columbus_center_site_up_in_air/)

[bostonbred]

this BINGE drunking splains the many thinks Iam thinkin here.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I've always thought that if the city really wanted these parcels developed right they should have built the deck themselves. I know they are too cheap to do that and now with the economy as it is there isn't any money to build expensive decking for no reason. Still, I think the blame should be spread around a bit more. Hopefully the Fenway Center will work out and, best case, will become a model for how to build air-rights. Time will tell.

[ablarc]

“Architecture and design as well as development in Boston has been on drunken binge for a while,’’ said Lee. “We have been building exorbitant projects that are quite fanciful. It’s time to pull back and be more thoughtful — celebrate the prosaic a little more. Not every building has to be an object building.’’
What exorbitant projects? What has been fanciful? "Celebrate the prosaic": THAT I can see plenty of. Anybody recall a recent object building in Boston? Intercontinental Hotel, maybe? What is this man talking about?

Since he seems to agree, maybe bostonbred can explain:

this BINGE drunking splains the many thinks Iam thinkin here.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I've always thought that if the city really wanted these parcels developed right they should have built the deck themselves.

Completely agree Van - though it would have to be a JV with the State since they actually own the air rights. I actually wrote a paper on this in grad school. The city can decide which parcels are priorities, throw down a deck, and decide what they want to allow on top. For example, if they want to provide open space you build an uber-cheap deck and throw some grass on top; if the city wants an ROI, build a monster deck, zone the shit out of it and charge developers through the nose for an FAR of 30.

RE: air rights over the Pike, one of the biggest risks to building the decks is the traffic management plan. The city and state SHOULD own that risk. Plus, the city could get federal funds and a private developer would get lambasted for trying.

[KentXie]

Completely agree Van - though it would have to be a JV with the State since they actually own the air rights. I actually wrote a paper on this in grad school. The city can decide which parcels are priorities, throw down a deck, and decide what they want to allow on top. For example, if they want to provide open space you build an uber-cheap deck and throw some grass on top; if the city wants an ROI, build a monster deck, zone the shit out of it and charge developers through the nose for an FAR of 30.

RE: air rights over the Pike, one of the biggest risks to building the decks is the traffic management plan. The city and state SHOULD own that risk. Plus, the city could get federal funds and a private developer would get lambasted for trying.

Wrong. Even if Boston wanted to deck over the city, the people will cry that it is a waste of taxpayers money. You think people like Ned will allow something like that? Forget it, the only way to please them is to have all of it funded by the developers themselves.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Forget it, the only way to please them is to have all of it funded by the developers themselves.

Exactly my point Kent. If the sentiment is that the city/state should make their money back then they can build an uber-deck and jack up the FAR - developers will end up paying for the zoning variances. If the sentiment is that the parcels should be open space, then the city can build a (relatively) cheap deck and plant grass.

Better to have the city make those decisions and build the decks than to award the development rights to someone and then tie them up in 10 years of activist lawsuits, rezoning, begging for subsidies, etc. Plus, as a construction company my biggest concern during a highway project is when and if the Pike will let me take lanes during construction. If the Pike is an owner, then that variable is taken off the table.

[GW2500]

Open space shouldn't even be an option. People bought around there with a loud, polluting highway right outside their door. The state dose not need to spend millions so they can have a profitless front yard. A building of any height (tall is prob they only way to get a return), is a vast improvement to what they've had for a long time now.

[JohnAKeith]

The Globe article from today says the state is somehow subsidizing the decks at Kenmore Center. Less money due to less decking, but still seems that they are contributing.

Now what was that again about no public subsidies?

[vanshnookenraggen]

Open space shouldn't even be an option. People bought around there with a loud, polluting highway right outside their door. The state dose not need to spend millions so they can have a profitless front yard. A building of any height (tall is prob they only way to get a return), is a vast improvement to what they've had for a long time now.

That is a really selfish viewpoint and one that is far too pervasive in city development. Building a park, yes, will improve property values but that also means that there is more tax money coming to the city. It encourages homeowners to actually take care of their property; highways are notorious for keeping values down so there is little incentive for neighborhoods around them to improve.

You also seem to be looking down on people who buy around a highway. Perhaps it was what they could afford? There are a lot of different sides here and having a black and white point of view doesn't help anyone.

[bostonbred]

What exorbitant projects? What has been fanciful? "Celebrate the prosaic": THAT I can see plenty of. Anybody recall a recent object building in Boston? Intercontinental Hotel, maybe? What is this man talking about?

Since he seems to agree, maybe bostonbred can explain:

This BIG BLAG WALL at 54 Providence STS being BIG binger drinker design!!! Arkiteky man maybe PUKE on blue print. Inks running into BIG BLOBS. wipe up and detail allGONE. Or acidsreflucks WARP hotel mylar so wiggly wiggly. DRINKING BAD. ESPESALLY BINGO drinkers!!!!

I being SICK now after celebrat at fiends St. Prosaic day party. Staying home from the schools now

[GW2500]

^ I grew up very close to a highway, so I'm not viewing down on people who bought half a million dollar townhouses all the while I'm living in a basement apt. Now w/ that being said you definately have more knowledge than me on all things urban, but on this I respectfully disagree. To spend tens of millions of dollars just to put a plot of grass on the deck is a waste. These people choose to live where they did with no promise of that highway ever becoming a park, actually I think they are sellfish. And, again I"m not sure, but wouldn't some nice towers inplace of a highway increase property values as well, plus the tax generated from these hypothetical towers. These people choose to live in Boston's central business area, an are which should build up. If a person can't take towers then they should live in 99.9% of the rest of the state. I mean if I didn't care for the ocean I wouldn't live in Hull.

[Shepard]

The role played by those who live next to the highway is actually very small. This story is largely around developers, banks, and subsidies. There are a few NIMBYs who play an outsized part relative to the number of people who stand silently to be positively impacted.

[GW2500]

^^ I agree, but in regards to parks on highway decks, I'm guessing that request came from the residents. And I think that either directly or indirectly the state would be paying a lot for that.

[vanshnookenraggen]

So are you also against people cashing in when the Green Line is extended to Medford? There wasn't any service promised to them when they bought their house, why should the state pay for something that benefits them? Oh wait, because it benefits all of us too. It's an investment in the city as a whole.

[Lrfox]

So are you also against people chasing in when the Green Line is extended to Medford? There wasn't any service promised to them when they bought their house, why should the state pay for something that benefits them? Oh wait, because it benefits all of us too. It's an investment in the city as a whole.

I like the argument you make. I agree on the premise (benefiting everyone). However, the comparison between a local park and public transportation is a stretch. Transit will likely create economic development that benefits everyone (in addition to taking cars off the roads). Parks will provide open space for people who live and work in the immediate vicinity, not doing much for people who don't live in close proximity to said parks.

The parks over the highway would not provide any significant revenue growth for the area, they'll also likely prevent economic development from ever taking place on those parcels. Can you imagine the outcry from the community if you tried to turn a park into a development? These are the people who act like any mid-size development on a surface parking lot nearby is akin to the devastation that took place at FernGully. Just imagine if the proposal was to replace an actual green space with a development. Even if the city built the park with the preexisting condition that it was a "temporary" place holder for future development, the neighbors would spit fire when the time came to build.

Again, I agree with your point, but don't think the transit bit is all that comparable.

[aquaman]

we have a park over a highway, the RKG. why anyone would want to replicate that is beyond me.

[GW2500]

I think your comparing apples to oranges. Spending tens of millions, plus all the extra hassel of building over a highway just to put grass ontop dosn't make economic sense to me. Where is the return, what developer would do this, only if the state pays for it. And no mater what way you cut it, towers are better than open highway and will increase value of the area. So why does the city/state have to pay so much for a few to have another dinky park. I don't see people from other parts of the city going to that park over the Charles, Common, and Fens.
And w/ the green line its not like the just citizens of the affected area were the only ones who wanted to see it happen. A lot of people wanted to see that happen b/c its impact will be far larger, its going to transform Somerville.
I want to see the pike covered but given the enormous cost of building the deck a park isn't justifieable when it's almost inevitalbly going to be govt flipping that bill.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

just to put grass ontop dosn't make economic sense to me.

Of course it doesn't make economic sense, but the government isn't in business to make money. The point I was making (in support of Van's original comment about the city building the decks) was that the City/State control three major variables:
1. What will be permitted for the sites (FAR, height, use, etc.).
2. The Traffic Management Plan for the Pike that will dictate the construction schedule (and go a long way towards dictating the cost) of building the decks.
3. The ability to get federal funds.

Given those three variables, the argument could be made that the city/state should build the decks once they've determined what will go on each parcel. I don't think anyone was demanding that parks should go in all the parcels. But if the electorate decides that we want more open space, then build parks. If the electorate decides we want this to be a money-maker for the city/state then build the Burj Kalifa.

I personally would prefer density there, but it's not entirely reasonable to say we can't have parks because they only benefit that neighborhood. The logical conclusion to that arguement is no parks anywhere.

[GW2500]

I hear what your saying, but I think that 80 million (total guess) for a small passive park is unexceptable, where as that same park built on soil is way cheaper. The budget-cutting gov't owes it's people to make money where it can, in reasonable ways. If more open space is really needed around there, which it isn't IMO, then buy some crap building tear it down and put it there.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I want to see the pike covered but given the enormous cost of building the deck a park isn't justifiable when it's almost inevitably going to be govt flipping that bill.

I agree that just paying for a small, ridiculously expensive park is a bad investment on a micro level. What I meant was that the City/State should pay for the entire decking on the Pike, not just for a park. A park is great for one part of the development but it has to be part of a package with buildings (we are both in agreement here). Just look at the Greenway!

But this still speaks to the larger question of government investment in cities. What pisses me off is when cities propose these grand, complicated investments but expect developers to foot the entire bill. This then means that what will eventually get built will be much larger than most people living nearby will be comfortable with. The government (city/state) knows how expensive these projects are so if they really want this as an improvement then I think it is only right that they should throw in some taxpayer money, but this means they need to be more of a partner in development than they are now. As it is now the developer just cries fowl and the government throws them a bone, and then it happens again and again.

Cities and States want their cake and to eat it too. What ends up happening is the developers get what they want and the citizens get screwed over twice. This isn't just a Boston thing, there are loads of examples of this all over the states right now in almost every major city (the new Yankee Stadium is a prime example).

So while I think the government should invest in these projects, I think that also means that they/we need to have more of a say, and not just yelling loudly at community meetings or posting on internet forums. This of course means bigger gov't so if you (I'm looking at you TheRifleman) don't like big gov't then you will probably just dismiss this idea anyway.

[GW2500]

I suppose your right. And the buildings do need to be broken up so I guess a small plaza would make sense. But either way I think tall towers are the answer b/c this is mainly an astetic thing. Sure it will add density, which is allways sexy, but it's not a necesity. So I think we owe it to ourselves to get the most out of this expensive endevour.

[itchy]

So while I think the government should invest in these projects, I think that also means that they/we need to have more of a say, and not just yelling loudly at community meetings or posting on internet forums.

I agree with you that government investment in infrastructure is a good thing, Van. But one thing that I don't like about the idea that if government is going to spend money on infrastructure, it needs to listen to "us," is that everyone wants to define "us" as they see fit.

What seems to happen too often is that all of the taxpayers are asked to foot the bill, but when the city goes to listen to "us," it holds a "community" meeting for the people who live in the immediate vicinity of the park, development, or whatever other project is at hand.

Generally, "the community" throws down a gauntlet: If the city is going to build a park (or allow a new apartment building), it must meet our demands. Those demands, almost inevitably, are for "open space," shorter heights, and "affordable housing."

Those things are almost never in the interests of the other 99% of the city's residents, who are asked equally to foot the bill (unless there's a special tax levied against businesses or residents in the immediate area).

That open space often takes the place of a theater, waterfront cafe, shops, other attractions that can engage and draw anyone from the city (or tourists, who often also foot the bill via sales and hotel taxes) or even just apartments, which provide a richer urban experience than "open space." Of course, the immediate neighbors know that nobody will care about a bland yard; that's in their interests, as it means that the people footing the bill won't have any use for the new amenity and therefore won't spoil their peace and quiet. But the city as a whole is often the worse off -- when it turns every development opportunity into open space, residents and tourists have no place to enjoy a beer by the water, stroll along a tree-lined shopping promenade, or see a movie or play.

Shorter building heights and "affordable housing" as well are seldom in the interests of the rest of the city. Both of them mean reduced tax bases for the city -- ultimately meaning either reduced services for the rest of the populace than would otherwise be possible, or higher taxes to support those services. On an aesthetic level -- and I realize that the vast majority of a city's residents generally don't give a damn about this -- it usually means uglier, cheaper structures that cheapen a city's livability.

So while I 100% agree that cities should be spending on infrastructure, and that the interests of the taxpayer should be kept in mind, the huge caveat I'd offer is: have the interests of ALL taxpayers (including tourists) in mind when determining whether, e.g., to build a park, allow a zoning variance to build a new apartment building, etc. By allowing the parochial NIMBY interests of "open space," short buildings and "affordable housing," the vast majority of the city, who are footing the bill, get a bum deal.

[ablarc]

Shorter building heights and "affordable housing" as well are seldom in the interests of the rest of the city.
Something I've often wondered is: how does affordable housing benefit the NIMBY community already living in a place?

Do they want their mama-in-law moving into the new building next door? Do their hearts bleed for the poor who can't live in an upmarket 'hood? Do they long for a little more slice-of-life to watch?

Or is it just another weapon in an arsenal of deception and hypocrisy meant only to stymie the next development?

[Ron Newman]

"Affordable housing" simply means keeping part of the neighborhood affordable by its current residents as the rest of it gentrifies. I see nothing wrong with this concept.

[itchy]

Ablarc, I think the issue for many people is that they're renters. Personally, I have never stayed more than a year or two in one place, so I don't really understand how renters come to think that they have a right to be somewhere, but that mindset seems to be at work.

For owners, it's clearly in their monetary interests to see prices go up. I don't know if they also tend to demand "affordable housing" or not. Although I have never owned a home, my sense from people who do/have is that owners typically want to see their house price go up more than almost anything else, given that 42-43% of average household net worth is locked up in people's homes.

[vanshnookenraggen]

"Affordable housing" simply means keeping part of the neighborhood affordable by its current residents as the rest of it gentrifies. I see nothing wrong with this concept.

The problem is that "affordable" is a relative term. Affordable housing in NYC is luxury level most other places. Everybody is for it but no one can agree on the definition.

[joebos]

What is so bad about affordable housing? The two people that I know who purchased affordable units are architects. They care about their units, community, etc. What's wrong with some diversity (economic, etc.).

[itchy]

Because it means taking tax dollars from all to support a politically chosen few. Let people live where they can afford to, and you don't have the frustration, artificially raised prices (the middle-class, relative to the neighborhood -- which sometimes may be upper middle-class but at least is a relatively intermediate step in the socioeconomic ladder -- is always the one that gets priced out) or distorted scenarios (why on earth would someone making little money want to live in an expensive downtown location? you can't afford anything, so you demand subsidized commercial rent, and the whole thing is a rigged-up mess before you know it) that come with the likes of Boss Menino and the BRA playing the role of market genie.

[joebos]

"Because it means taking tax dollars from all to support a politically chosen few."

This was the argument many had against subsidizing Columbus Center.

And as far as "can't afford anything", affordable housing is not being given to the poor. The two people I know who bought affordable units can afford to shop (groceries, clothing, eat out, etc.) in the city.

[itchy]

And they were right -- I don't think it's good policy for private real estate developments to be subsidized. But as Van recently suggested, I'm all for the city building the decks if they can then sell the land rights to developers who can build with their own money. If it's feasible, it is by all means in the city's interests to monetize these air rights by getting the decks built, then selling them at a profit to developers.

Re. the architects: If they're not poor, then why are they being given subsidized housing? If land is really valuable in the center of the city, let it be given over to uses that value it as such, and can fill the city coffers with the taxes they pay so we can all have better transit, schools, etc. I don't see why people who have good jobs and can afford a place in JP or Somerville should be given special privileges to live in a more-desirable area.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Itchy, I think your notion of affordable housing is confused with Section 8 housing or Public Housing. The most common type of affordable housing incorporated into private development is designated for "Low Income" (up to 80% of Area Median Income - HUD defines all this). For 2009 the 80% threshold was $46,300 for a single occupant household. That means an affordable unit can charge up to $1,175 in rent & utilities per month for a 1BR or studio.

So, in Boston at least, it's the middle class - those you claim to be getting priced out - that are actually the real beneficiaries.

FYI, developers can also get affordability credits for pricing up to 100% of AMI. Meaning the rents landlords can charge are even higher than those listed above.

[ablarc]

^ Smells like Denmark.

[TheRifleman]

This was the deal they gave Winn. $150,000,000tax breaks 19years to create 254 Jobs

Unbelievable

http://www.boston.com/business/specials/developmenttaxbreaks/?appSession=433143916019125&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=2&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Read the text at the top of the page. Companies were eligible for 5% of their private investment. So for Winn that was $7.5M. Not saying he didn't have other subsidies, but the link you gave implies a tax break of $7.5M.

[TheRifleman]

Columbus developers can’t pay for cleanup
Partners tell Mass. they have only $2m in assets
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / March 17, 2010
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + Developers of the defunct Columbus Center development in Boston have told state officials they are running out of money and cannot afford to pay millions of dollars to clean up the abandoned construction site.

Discuss
COMMENTS (4)
In a letter released yesterday, a lawyer for WinnCompanies and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System told state officials the business partnership has only $1.5 million to $2 million in assets remaining, less than half what the state estimates it will cost to restore the property along the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston.

The lawyer, Adam Hundley of Goulston & Storrs in Boston, acknowledged the shortfall but asked the state to “bear in mind that in addition to the enormous time and effort they have invested in this failed project, the [developers] have already lost in excess of $125 million’’ trying to build it.

“We understand that there is no perfect resolution that can erase the years of frustrations and losses all of the parties have suffered over the course of this project,’’ Hundley wrote. “However, the [developers] believe that litigation will benefit no one.’’

Last week Calpers, the main backer in the $800 million Columbus Center venture, officially declared the long-dormant development dead after a 13-year effort to get it built and said it would be winding down operations.

Massachusetts officials are now trying to get the developers to restore parts of the construction area, which they estimate will cost $4 million to $5 million. A spokesman yesterday reiterated that the state still expects the developers to pay the full cost of the cleanup, but would not comment on whether it will sue to recover those funds.

The project was to be one of the biggest and boldest in Boston’s history, calling for the construction of a six-building complex, including a 35-story tower, that would have straddled the turnpike between Arlington and Clarendon streets.

Following its failure, transportation officials said their first priority is to clean up the project’s dusty construction lots, which sit adjacent to Bay Village neighbors who have had to live with the stalled project for the past two years.

They are also asking the developers to pay for the removal of Jersey barriers they installed that narrow the highway near the project site, among other fixes.

In his letter, Hundley asserted that even if the state does pursue reimbursement in court, it can only collect from the development partnership created for the project, not from WinnCompanies and Calpers themselves.

“The [development partnership] has proposed to pay all of their remaining net assets to the [state], which is all the [state] could recover even if it were to prevail in litigation,’’ Hundley wrote.

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



This is a classic. Why don't they look down Dianne Wilkerson Bra for the rest of the money.

[Ron Newman]

Why can't the state seize whatever local assets it needs from WinnCompanies in order to do the needed cleanup? Or put a lien on any WinnCompanies real estate?

[ablarc]

Can you spend a lien?

[AmericanFolkLegend]

I'm sure Toby can speak more to the legal specifics, but the Columbus Center JV was organized as an independent LLC. So, the state can make no claim on anything other than the ownership stakes of the partners in the LLC (which it sounds like are virtually worthless). This is the same logic behind why Donald Trump has a bunch of properties go bust every downcycle but he's still rolling in cash.

For an interesting local example, check out this article. Warning: it might infuriate you.
The New Way To Deal
How Kambiz Shahbazi Came Up Black By Putting Others In The Red


By Paul McMorrow

Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

02/22/10


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't cry for Kambiz Shahbazi, at one time one of the most aggressive buyers of commercial property in and around Boston. His former 5 million-square-foot portfolio may be in shambles, but he's currently scouring the market, looking for something else to buy with someone else's money.

When times were good, Shahbazi assembled a mostly suburban, Class B portfolio that reached 5 million square feet. Some of it has already fallen to foreclosure, while other buildings are overleveraged and worth far less than the debt on them.

When it’s all said and done, Shahbazi may well lose more real estate in this recession than any other landlord, including New York’s Broadway Partners, late owners of the John Hancock Tower and Waltham’s Bay Colony Corporate Center.

But Shahbazi’s firm, KS Partners, is in fine shape. The company managed to suck millions of dollars out of properties now teetering on the edge of foreclosure. His strategy of putting other people’s money at risk instead of his own, while perhaps unscrupulous, has certainly proven successful.

King Of Class B

Shahbazi, one crowned an emerging “empire builder” in area real estate by local media, made a killing during the market’s boom years by buying up properties few other investors wanted: 1980’s-vintage Class B office and R&D space in secondary suburban markets. He was a big player in Billerica, Chelmsford and Wilmington. He bought up aging office parks in Braintree and Dedham. And he did much of it with degrees of leverage that look obscene in the post-Lehman world, leverage that has largely shielded Shahbazi’s firm from the nasty commercial downturn currently battering the industry.

Banker & Tradesman conducted a portfolio-level examination of 3.6 million square feet of Shahbazi’s properties believed to have problems with performance or excessive degrees of leverage. It included three deals, totaling 2 million square feet of commercial space, financed by commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and six other acquisitions, covering 1.6 million square feet.

The investigation revealed Shahbazi’s firm took out far more money from those properties than it ever put in, mostly through leveraged acquisitions and timely refinancing. Shahbazi excelled in riding values upward and extracting profit from real estate through transactions, rather than operations.

Tidy Profit, Disastrous Deals

KS Partners’ three CMBS deals covered 2 million square feet of commercial space, and totaled $156 million in mortgage debt. All three deals are now either in default or foreclosure. But leverage, payments from equity partners and a condo conversion at one Boston property put KS Partners in the black by $42.5 million.

Those properties financed by whole lenders haven’t hit the auction block yet, but they’re now worth far less than the debt they carry. That group, which totals another 1.6 million square feet and $187 million in debt, includes major acquisitions in Boston, Wilmington, Newton, and Dedham, as well as a rather disastrous-looking 2007 suburban refinancing by GE Capital.

In three of the six acquisitions in this group, Shahbazi’s firm took more cash out of the properties it bought than they put into them, and two others were leveraged above 95 percent, putting Shahbazi on the hook for only a small equity stake. The GE deal alone netted KS Partners $21.3 million, thanks to generous underwriting and exploding commercial values.

Same Ol’, Same Ol’

Even if Shahbazi lost all those properties, his firm will have still netted nearly $52 million – simply by buying, and potentially losing, 3.6 million square feet of commercial space.

KS Partners’ chances of staying in its buildings will largely depend on the firm’s willingness to sink new capital into its properties, something the company hasn’t demonstrated a great appetite for. Shahbazi does have breathing room in these deals, though, as GE has been reticent to do anything that would affect the book value of its commercial loans.

But Shahbazi isn’t content to sit back and watch his empire crumble. He’s seeing what other investors see – the chance to scoop up distressed commercial properties at historically low prices. To that end, he has raised a new equity fund – “A couple hundred million,” one source told Banker & Tradesman and is now actively scouring the area, looking for new properties to buy.

His first post-bust acquisition, a 275,000-square-foot foreclosed office property at 75 Sylvan St. in Danvers, is reportedly under agreement for $11.75 million.

According to an industry source, it’s an all-cash deal.

Through a spokesperson, Shahbazi declined to comment on this story.

[Ron Newman]

Isn't it fraudulent to organize an LLC this way for the purpose of evading legitimate debt obligations? Seems like a court could go either way on this issue.

As for Shahbazi, it doesn't look like his actions actually harmed anyone (the towns, the office tenants, etc.)

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Ron, it's no different than any other ownership structure. If Pepsi goes bankrupt, its creditors can't go after its shareholders. If a law firm goes bust, its creditors can't go after the partners. If the John Hancock tower gets foreclosed, its creditors can't go after Broadway Partners. The exception of course is if any of the debt is secured by any of the owning partners. In this case that doesn't seem to be the case.

Good point on Shahbazi. He really only hurt the institutions that were foolish enough to lend to him.

[Boston02124]

nice green lawn (for now,weeds,trash ect to follow)! Today sitting in traffic on the pike! http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn80/boston02124/boston%20skyline/278-4.jpg http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn80/boston02124/boston%20skyline/280-4.jpg

[JohnAKeith]

Columbus Center project dead, for now (http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=103523)
by Kate Vander Wiede
South End News

http://www.mysouthend.com/display/viewimage_story.php?id=103523

Cones sit next to mangled fence sections on the cordoned-off strip of land between Cortes Street and the Massachusetts Turnpike. Tree stumps line the sidewalk where 24 mature trees were removed years before. Signs instruct visitors to wear safety protection. After more than a decade, the big project that couldn’t now sits doomed.

The corner of Cortes Street and East Berkeley Street is just one of the five parcels of land that would have been a footprint of the Columbus Center, now owned by developer California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

Back in 1997, Boston-based WinnCompanies won designation rights to add a 35-floor skyscraper, a parking garage, luxury condominiums and other mid-rise buildings to the South End and Back Bay community. In the 13 years since, money problems and community outrage have wrought continuing controversy around the site, which eventually passed into the hands of CalPERS.

But, in a move that brought about the beginning of the end of the Columbus Center, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) officially terminated the developer’s lease last week. MassDOT told Columbus Center developers last month that they were in default of their 99-year lease of the property for a number of violations, including failing to complete proposed building projects on time and maintain the construction sites to Department of Transportation standards, and gave them one month to come up with a viable business plan. No plan was hashed out.

Third Suffolk State Representative Aaron Michlewitz, who has seen the project wither away during his time as an aide to former speaker Sal DiMasi and since taking over his former boss’s post last summer, expressed his relief that a decision had finally been made.

"The community was put in limbo for quite some time and while there is still a long process ahead, I think it is a welcome end to the uncertainty that has been surrounding the project from day one," he said.

The long process Michlewitz alluded to concerns the project’s clean up. Apart from the trash and fences surrounding the properties, electrical cables, cement road barriers, cones, an electrical station, and construction vehicles must be removed.

"We need to see the site restored to as close to the original shape, as close as possible," said Michlewitz.

The problem facing MassDOT and developers now is who pays for the clean-up costs. Adam Hurtubise, a spokesperson for MassDOT, said his organization and CalPERS are continuing ongoing talks.

"We received a letter back from them and we are going to discuss their letter with them. In the meantime we do expect the developers to pay for clean-up costs at the Columbus Center site," he said, estimating that costs could total up to $5 million.

Spokesperson Steve Sugerman of Stockbridge Real Estate Funds, a partner of CalPERS that has taken up the negotiations, said no decision had been made concerning clean-up costs or responsibility.

"We are continuing to seek a productive working relationship with MassDOT and the City of Boston to amicably close the site down," he said, echoing the statement his company provided days before.

The developers’ most recent letter to MassDOT explains that the developers are willing to pay $1.5-2.0 million dollars "in exchange for which the parties to the Leases [will] each release one another from all claims under the Leases or relating to the project."

The letter states that the "primary stumbling block to resolution of this matter has been the Landlord’s desire to collect more."

"The Tenants have proposed to pay all of their remaining net assets to the Landlord, which is all the Landlord could recover if it were to prevail in litigation against the Tenants ... please bear in mind that in addition to the enormous time and effort they have invested in this failed project, the Tenants have already lost in excess of $125 million on this project. Moreover, MassDOT and the City have already received millions of dollars in benefits from the Tenants including $3 million in rent, the $2.3 million Austin Rounds parcel, and the $1.6 million in funding for Frieda Garcia Park," the letter continues.

The letter also expresses the developers’ hope that litigation will not occur: "The Tenants believe that litigation will benefit no one, and that a settlement consistent with the Leases is the only sensible outcome."

As CalPERS, Stockbridge, and MassDOT try to find middle ground on the issue, residents remain waiting. Several community members who live around the site, who all declined to give their names, varied in attitude toward what should happen now.

One Cortes Street resident, who had only recently heard of the project, gestured to the construction site and grimaced.

"Well, I’d rather them not leave it like this," she said.

Another resident, who has lived in a Cortes Street basement apartment for 43 years, said that the trees should be replanted or that crews should "at least take the stumps out of the way."

An Appleton Street resident, whose window views would have been blocked by the Columbus Center construction, was relieved that the project had been "kiboshed."

"Frankly, I’m glad that whatever it is, it’s not just another high rise. ... It’s exhilarating when you travel down Clarendon and you see a city, but I like the squirrels and the birds and the trees," she said.

She hoped that the bad economy and decrease in condo purchasing would keep large developments in her backyard at a minimum.

But Clarendon Street resident Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist who has followed the construction-or lack thereof-since its inception, said he wouldn’t mind a large construction project, as long as it followed the "master plan" guidelines provided in the Turnpike Air Rights Civic Vision written in 2000.

This "master plan" concerned several aspects of the 23 parcels of land subject to "air rights" above the city’s section of the turnpike-from the community process that development should follow to the specific buildings each parcel could hold. But Flaherty believes that even this plan-specifically the citizen advisory committees it discussed-needs to be tweaked.

"In 1997, the mayor agreed that every citizen advisory committee would have most of its seats owned by the developer and the construction industry ... so the developer always won. [The members nominated by the community] didn’t have a chance," he said. "It doesn’t do any good that you have a master plan if the review committee is going to violate it every time they take a vote."

Going forward, Flaherty still hopes that the last 13 years of difficulty will end well.

"I care deeply about the community and I hope for a good outcome," he said.

[briv]

South End NIMBY stands victoriously before his spoils.

[KentXie]

There is no victory for anyone. Boston doesn't get its canyon stitched up, the community do not gain anything. A total loss. All from the hands of a handful of people.

[statler]

Boston Metro (http://www.metro.us/us/article/2010/03/23/01/5508-72/index.xml) - March 23, 2010
Can Columbus Center neighbors take a breath?
Now that Columbus Center is dead, the question is can neighbors stomach another development proposal anytime soon?

The lease for the 35-floor skyscraper to be built over the MassPike near Back Bay Station was recently terminated by MassDOT, ending a 13-year nightmare for neighbors. And the project’s main backer, the California State Pension Fund (Calpers) said the $800 million mega-complex is no longer economically feasible.

Now some say another development process should begin immediately, possibly with four smaller proposals. Ned Flaherty, a South End urban planning activist who opposed public subsidies for Columbus Center, however, is calling for a one-year “cooling off period” after the site is restored to its preconstruction state.

“The healthy thing is to take a breather, start fresh,” Flaherty said. “It’s hard to start fresh if we still have indigestion from this thing.”

Peter Pogorski, who lives 20 feet from the site, also isn’t sure he can stomach more “false starts” but said it is a good time to build.

“Or organize the process because the economy will rebound,” he said. “There isn’t a lot of construction now so there’s an advantage to getting started in a down cycle.”

State officials hope to hold a community meeting this spring to gauge the neighborhoods’ mood.

“We’ll take our cues from the community,” said Peter O’Connor, head of real estate for the MassDOT. “Before we take the plunge back in we gotta have a plan in place. I can’t revive Columbus Center. We heard Calpers say that project has no future.”

Vindication, at a cost

Ned Flaherty, a South End urban planning activist who opposed public subsidies for Columbus Center over the last 13 years, said the project's recent collapse is a bittersweet vindication.

"It's one of those things that I can say 'I was right,' I can say 'I told you so' but I didn't want it to end this way," he said. "I started saying in 1996 Columbus Center would end exactly the way it did.

"I do feel vindicated. A former secretary of transportation called me and said 'Good job Ned, you were right all along.'"

$5M cleanup remains

Columbus Center developers will give the state their remaining assets ($2 million) to restore the former construction site. But while the state lawyers try to siphon the remaining $3 million from developers — California State Pension Fund and Boston’s Winn Cos. — it will take to complete the restoration, state officials are moving forward with the project.

Peter O’Connor, head of real estate for MassDOT, said the site is a safety hazard and will be clean by summer’s end.

“I’m still trying to understand why there was no remedy available to us, why there was no letter of credit or performance bond in place to give us another source of funds to clean up the site,” O’Connor said.

[kz1000ps]

I always love it when I earn the right to pat myself on the back.

[TheRifleman]

Ned Flaherty is a patriot and my Hero. Great Job Ned!

[ablarc]

"But Clarendon Street resident Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist who has followed the construction-or lack thereof-since its inception, said he wouldn’t mind a large construction project, as long as it followed the "master plan" guidelines provided in the Turnpike Air Rights Civic Vision written in 2000."

Ned Flaherty, you are truly an ass-hole.

[TheRifleman]

Ned Flaherty, you are truly an ass-hole.

I think Ned is a ringer. I would rather this guy on my side then go against him.

[ablarc]

I won't dignify him by saying he made the difference, but Ned Flaherty did do his best to harm Boston's rational and normal growth. His legacy will fester like a pustule for decades.

[JohnAKeith]

Name-calling makes this board worthless.

[kennedy]

Likewise, stifled development makes this board pointless.

[WISERPAK]

Now, if "somehow" "somebody" will come out with enough READY cash to build this project, but ask for "few" changes, like a taller tower, will the city give the OK or "more local" NIMBY will try to stop it and give hard time?
If it's a matter of money and that part will be solved "by a miracle investor", what going to happen?

[TheRifleman]

Now, if "somehow" "somebody" will come out with enough READY cash to build this project, but ask for "few" changes, like a taller tower, will the city give the OK or "more local" NIMBY will try to stop it and give hard time?
If it's a matter of money and that part will be solved "by a miracle investor", what going to happen?

The risk is not worth the reward at this point. I would rather just keep my cash under my mattress.

[joebos]

Boston Herald, Aug. 31, 2010:
Feds charge exec with illegally steering campaign funds to pols: (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1278280)

Authorities say Raffol induced three Winn vendors to give money to specific candidates, then let them submit inflated invoices to get the funds back.

[TheRifleman]

Boston Herald, Aug. 31, 2010:
Feds charge exec with illegally steering campaign funds to pols: (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1278280)

Authorities say Raffol induced three Winn vendors to give money to specific candidates, then let them submit inflated invoices to get the funds back.

This was hidden in the Herald. Honestly Martha Coakley is the biggest joke for a attorney general.

[joebos]

This was hidden in the Herald. Honestly Martha Coakley is the biggest joke for a attorney general.

Yeah, the Globe buried it, too.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/08/feds_indict_bos.html

[TheRifleman]

Yeah, the Globe buried it, too.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/08/feds_indict_bos.html

These articles say it all. This is what Boston Development has become over the last 20 years.

[PaulC]

I've been meaning to post this for a couple of years. How come no one has asked how did a small time politically connected developer of subsidized housing get to be the developer of a huge $800 million project? There is nothing in his past that would make it conceivable that he could pull this off. I'm also old enough to remember when this project consisted of a lone 12 story building.

[bostonbred]

THIS things was showing U piples wAs all WRoNG and MR NED FF is RITE in ure end

MR Ned RULES

[JohnAKeith]

PaulC, how is this any different than John Rosenthal (if any)? He's done few big developments but is now ready to build multi-million (billion?) project in The Fenway?

[JohnAKeith]

This does not justify Mr Ed's argument, at all. He was against the project because his view would be affected and because of the public subsidies; I don't remember anything about accusations of payoffs or worse.

[stellarfun]

This was hidden in the Herald. Honestly Martha Coakley is the biggest joke for a attorney general.

Coakley has neither the duty nor the responsibility to enforce FEDERAL campaign financing laws.

[TheRifleman]

Coakley has neither the duty nor the responsibility to enforce FEDERAL campaign financing laws.

No shit, but she does have the right to follow up on criminal activity among our state political leaders. Beacon Hill is a rotting cease pool of political scum these days. Seems that it has been ignored for the last 15 years by our attorney general. I read article about Coakley suing Goldman Sachs for 20 million for mortgage fraud in the state. Why didn't she file criminal charges? I want to see people go to jail.

So let me get this straight. She got 20 Million from Goldman Sachs after the taxpayers bailed them out 90 billion.
(Sounds to me that's called shuffle the taxpayers money around)
The women is a stooge.

[statler]

This thread is the Jason Voorhees of ArchBoston. It just won't die and every time it comes back it is worse than the last time.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2ch582r.jpg

[TheRifleman]

This thread is the Jason Voorhees of ArchBoston. It just won't die and every time it comes back it is worse than the last time.

I hear ya more like the Freddy Krueger of developments.

Sorry for the hostile post about Coakley, Stellar.

[stellarfun]

No shit, but she does have the right to follow up on criminal activity among our state political leaders. Beacon Hill is a rotting cease pool of political scum these days. Seems that it has been ignored for the last 15 years by our attorney general. I read article about Coakley suing Goldman Sachs for 20 million for mortgage fraud in the state. Why didn't she file criminal charges? I want to see people go to jail.

So let me get this straight. She got 20 Million from Goldman Sachs after the taxpayers bailed them out 90 billion.
(Sounds to me that's called shuffle the taxpayers money around)
The women is a stooge.

A.) It was the Feds who 'bailed out' Goldman, not the Commonwealth with state taxpayer monies.

B.) Goldman was in for $10 billion, not $90 billion.

C.) The Feds made money off the 'bailout' of Goldman. Goldman paid back the $10 billion last year, plus paid $1.1 billion to buy back the government-owned warrants it gave the Feds in exchange for the $10 billion, plus paid $318 million in preferred dividends to the Feds. The annualized rate of return to the Feds for 'bailing out' Goldman was 23 percent. We should all be able to do so well with our investments.

[bostonbred]

This does not justify Mr Ed's argument, at all. He was against the project because his view would be affected and because of the public subsidies; I don't remember anything about accusations of payoffs or worse.

First, Mr. Ed is TALKIN bout theplayoffs.
BUT CORUPSION too. COrupsion IS PUBLIC subsedy of CROOK. Ols Uncle say like the BIG BRA stuffers like at CENTREfold LAP dancer diana wilk. WHAt a ViEW in such PhOtos!!!!

So. THIS is the DIALECTICAL process.

[TheRifleman]

A.) It was the Feds who 'bailed out' Goldman, not the Commonwealth with state taxpayer monies.

B.) Goldman was in for $10 billion, not $90 billion.

C.) The Feds made money off the 'bailout' of Goldman. Goldman paid back the $10 billion last year, plus paid $1.1 billion to buy back the government-owned warrants it gave the Feds in exchange for the $10 billion, plus paid $318 million in preferred dividends to the Feds. The annualized rate of return to the Feds for 'bailing out' Goldman was 23 percent. We should all be able to do so well with our investments.

B. You forget the Fed bailed out AIG 100 cents on the dollar which laundered 90 Billion to the bankrupt Goldman Sachs. And where do you think the billions come from the FEDERAL RESERVE which prints currency on the back of the American Taxpayers. Remember the Federal Reserve is a private organization which is not audited by America but owned by foreign investors.

C. You shouldn't really watch the news. The fed probably did make money on the deal because they have been stealing it since Wilson enacted them into power, especially keeping interest rates at zero percent which effects the buying power for the working class. But that is whole other story.

My point was why would our Attorney General sue Goldman Sachs for money after the Govt issued bailout money to the banks on the taxpayers shoulders. If anything file Criminal charges against the people that created the mortagage fraud.

Martha Coakley is completely INEPT to reality.

[PaulC]

PaulC, how is this any different than John Rosenthal (if any)? He's done few big developments but is now ready to build multi-million (billion?) project in The Fenway?

I've also been intending to post the same thing to that thread. Rosenthal is also connected and has been caught over charging on his 40b projects. He has done nothing to make me think he can pull off this big a project. He won the right to the parcels across the street and has done nothing and yet he was then given this parcel. Now he has the turnpike parcel that's almost all on solid ground and I believe the state/T will be paying for the hard sections. Any one want to guess why he was the only bidder on this parcel?

[stellarfun]

B. You forget the Fed bailed out AIG 100 cents on the dollar which laundered 90 Billion to the bankrupt Goldman Sachs. And where do you think the billions come from the FEDERAL RESERVE which prints currency on the back of the American Taxpayers. Remember the Federal Reserve is a private organization which is not audited by America but owned by foreign investors.

C. You shouldn't really watch the news. The fed probably did make money on the deal because they have been stealing it since Wilson enacted them into power, especially keeping interest rates at zero percent which effects the buying power for the working class. But that is whole other story.

My point was why would our Attorney General sue Goldman Sachs for money after the Govt issued bailout money to the banks on the taxpayers shoulders. If anything file Criminal charges against the people that created the mortagage fraud.

Martha Coakley is completely INEPT to reality.
No, I didn't forget about AIG.

AIG has been paying the government back on its bailout money too. AIG stock this afternoon is $36 and change. The Feds own 80 percent of AIG. I expect AIG will be able to pay pack most of the bailout; not yet about to say it will pay back all of it at this point.

I know you dislike fractional banking. What do you think of a memorial to Sacco and Vanzetti on the Greenway? A plaque to Galleani? Maybe, Chiofaro can erect such for fellow paisans as public art next to his Arch.

[TheRifleman]

No, I didn't forget about AIG.

AIG has been paying the government back on its bailout money too. AIG stock this afternoon is $36 and change. The Feds own 80 percent of AIG. I expect AIG will be able to pay pack most of the bailout; not yet about to say it will pay back all of it at this point.

I know you dislike fractional banking. What do you think of a memorial to Sacco and Vanzetti on the Greenway? A plaque to Galleani? Maybe, Chiofaro can erect such for fellow paisans as public art next to his Arch.

Actually what was the cost of the Fed stepping over their boundaries owning 80percent of AIG? Possibly Capitalism

Instead of the taxpayers bailing out the losers at AIG which I still hear that they have 200 Trillion in deriatives ready to explode anyway. Whatever happened to the good old Bankrutpcy laws. File Bankrutpcy and restructure the company with new financing or completely liquidate assets to the highest bidder? I guess those rules don't apply to Bankers who don't know how to do their Due Diligence.

I guess congress forgot those rules don't apply to the bankers since Bush signed into law in 2005 the New Bankruptcy rules against the middle class in which they are forced to file Chap 11 over Chap 7. I actually remember when Bush was signing the law, he claimed that Americans need to take responsibility with their finances. LOL

I actually have not gone to the Greenway in the while. I keep hearing about the 50ft Hammock. I will probably go down their next summer.

[czsz]

50ft Hammock

The more I think about it, the more I realize what this is: a classic American roadside attraction. Googie street furniture.

http://photos.forteantimes.com/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_2/fortean_times_1390_7.jpg

[PaulC]

Home / Real estate / Real Estate News Around the region

State to aid Fenway Center project
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / October 16, 2009
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has agreed to absorb up to $65 million in costs to expedite construction of a $500 million complex of residences, stores, and offices near Fenway Park. The arrangement announced yesterday will allow developer John Rosenthal to begin construction next summer on Fenway Center, which includes four buildings, a parking garage, and a revamped commuter rail station between Brookline Avenue and Beacon Street.


The Patrick administration has agreed to foot part of the bill for a particularly expensive component of the plan: building over the Massachusetts Turnpike. The state will give Rosenthal a rent credit of up to $65 million to compensate for the extra cost of building over the turnpike. That money will be deducted from lease payments Rosenthal will make over the course of a 99-year lease with the state.


http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2009/10/16/state_to_aid_fenway_center_project/

[TheRifleman]

So what I am learning is just pay off our POLITICANS and they will hook you up with Taxpayers money to help create jobs. This is joke.

Tell Rosenthal to use his own fucking money. Risk versus reward.

Rosenthal just another pussy that will go down as another sneaky slimy developer.

I would love to see this guy life style. Probably lives in Weston driving a Rolls but needs taxpayers funds to get his project started. Good luck America.

[TheRifleman]

Ned Flaherty post on Boston Globe

"NedFlaherty wrote:
The state has never published:

● independent, professional, fair-market-value property appraisal;
● comparison of this deal vs. a non-subsidized, fair-market-value deal;
● evidence of the actual tunnel/deck construction cost;
● the premium or savings of air-based vs. land-based development;
● independent audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies using government accounting standards.

Without the above facts, any discussion of subsidies is premature and unjustified, because there is no way to know who benefits, by how much, or when.
10/18/2009 9:28 PM EDT Recommend Report abuse"


All we need is ShirleyKressel

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Rosenthal just another pussy

Way to elevate the discourse Rifleman.