Columbus Center: RIP

[philip]

Columbus Center, Boston, MA

This 35-story tower development would take shape on a deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike and would include an upscale hotel, multimillion-dollar condos, parks and an array of neighborhood shops. The $500 million mini-neighborhood would be one of the largest highway air-rights projects ever built in the country.

Status
Approved - Not yet under construction

Architects
cbt architects (http://www.cbtarchitects.com/main.html)

Stats
Name: Columbus Center
Project Address: 101 Clarendon Street & 100 Berekley Street
Map & Plan Links: View aerial map (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/DevelopmentProjects/PipeDocs/Columbus%20Center/Maps/46%20Columbus%20Center.pdf) (large file) : View plot map (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/DevelopmentProjects/PipeDocs/Columbus%20Center/Maps/Columbus%20Center_plan.pdf)
Neighborhood:South End/Bay Village
Uses:Hotel, Retail, Residential, Ownership
Land Sq. Ft.: 44,734 ft
Building Sq. Ft.: 1,302,000 ft
Residential Units: 343
Applicant: Columbus Center Associates
Project Description: 493 residential units w/ 15% affordable (10% on, 5% off), 199 hotel rooms, and 917 parking spaces-over Turnpike Air Rights Parcels 16, 17, 18, 19 Zoning-exempt due to MOU. MOU Determinations approved 7/10/03. Voluntary PDA

Source: Development Projects - Boston Redevelopment Authority (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/DevelopmentProjects/devprojects.asp?action=ViewProject&ProjectID=46)

Images

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/singer/006.jpg http://img214.echo.cx/img214/2839/cc26gx.jpg
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7728/columbuscenter1ul8.th.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=columbuscenter1ul8.jpg) http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/6750/columbuscenter2yd1.th.jpg (http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=columbuscenter2yd1.jpg) http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9949/columbuscenter3ug6.th.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/my.php?image=columbuscenter3ug6.jpg) http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9523/columbuscenter4ec5.th.jpg (http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=columbuscenter4ec5.jpg)
http://home.comcast.net/%7Egtboston/Dsc00106.jpg

Articles
- Developer Disappointed With Mass Turnpike's Offer (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/21/developer_disappointed_with_mass_turnpike_offer/), 2006
- Deal Near To Give Columbus Center A Boost (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/05/deal_near_to_give_columbus_center_plan_a_boost/), 2006
- Columbus Center Wins Tax Credit Worth Millions (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/06/30/columbus_center_wins_tax_credits_worth_millions/), 2006
- South End News - Columbus Center Moves Forward (http://www.southendnews.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=80699828C2F54D479252FB585E3E4B99), 2006
- Columbus Center Gets Key Financing (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/11/columbus_center_getting_key_financing/), 2006
- Columbus Center Wants $50M in Aid (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/12/14/columbus_center_team_wants_50m_in_public_aid/), 2005
- Columbus Center Seeks Public Financing (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/12/08/columbus_centers_developer_seeks_public_financing/), 2005
- Columbus Center Air Rights Moves Forward (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2003/02/17/story3.html), 2003
- Progress? Columbus Center could start in '04 (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2003/06/30/newscolumn3.html), 2003

Links

- Official Columbus Center Condo Website (http://www.columbuscentercondos.com/)
- Project Information on Boston Redevelopment Authority (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/DevelopmentProjects/devprojects.asp?action=ViewProject&ProjectID=46)
- Interactive Graphic of Columbus Center from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/columbus_center/flash_graphic/)

- Columbus Center - archBOSTON Wiki (http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/architecturalboston/columbus_center?wpid=218461[/url)

[philip]

Home > Business Today > Business News > RSS Feed
By Scott Van Voorhis/ Dealmakers
Friday, May 26, 2006 - Updated: 01:38 AM EST

Whew! That was a close one.

Retired Judge Herbert Wilkins has found no special treatment when it comes to a key state subsidy for the $600 million Columbus Center air-rights tower complex.

Apparently, developer Arthur Winn’s status as a big Gov. Romney campaign contributor played no role in the special assistance the 400-foot-high condo and hotel skyrise complex won.

The conclusion, delivered quietly earlier this month, will hardly come as a shocker.

After all, it is our good governor with the big White House dreams who launched the review in the first place.

And to be fair, there was never any evidence of any undue influence, other than the fact that Winn has been a Romney supporter.

Rather, for a local politician with national aspirations, it was that old maneuver called covering your tail.

If the measure is just another silly government exercise, then I guess no harm was done.

That is unless you take into account the big picture surrounding the hotly contested Columbus Center plan, which would deck over an ugly Turnpike highway canyon that for decades has divided the Back Bay and South End.

While the goal is noble and ambitious, the project prompted years of fierce opposition from South End and Back Bay neighbors angered over the sheer scale of Winn’s creation.

And let me tell you, there were reviews galore, with the builders routinely grilled at more than 100 meetings - spanning years - by their prospective neighbors.

Still, by this spring, that gauntlet was history as Winn and Cassin prepared to pull the trigger on the complex financing package needed to get the long-delayed project into construction.

Then came the Romney review, and yet another - albeit minor - delay.

Now it’s time to see whether we are talking about a real plan, or just another Boston big development pipe dream.

International Place developer Don Chiofaro is ready to take another shot at what he likes to do best - building big.

He wants to build a giant new office, condo and hotel sky-rise that would soar, at its highest point, nearly 500 feet into the Boston skyline, city officials say.

The developer has an option to buy an unsightly parking garage strategically located on the new Greenway Park system and next door to the New England Aquarium.

Chiofaro will need room to build, with his plan typically outsized: 800,000 square feet of offices, 125 luxury condos and 175 hotel rooms - not to mention a huge, underground garage.

But the size of Chiofaro’s plan is likely to raise the hackles of waterfront activists eager to preserve public access to the waterfront.

So look for some stormy weather ahead.

[castevens]

The more of the highway that they cover up, the happier castevens becomes

[kz1000ps]

^ Yeppers! My room overlooks the highway where it crosses under Mass Ave, and although it gives me a much more expansive view than can normally be achieved from a 3rd floor window, all the concrete is not too pretty. I wish Boylston Place or whatever it was called went through, because by now it would have been done and I wouldn't have had to put up with construction noises! On the other hand, I wouldn't even want to begin imagining what traffic would be like on the arterials around here with that addition...Mass Ave is clogged enough as is, and Boylston is just the same heading east (west is at maybe 40% capacity).

The only good thing about the highway is that at nighttime, the ebb and flow of cars whooshing by is almost kinda sorta soothing. Like a perverse ocean or something....

[castevens]

I wish Boylston Place or whatever it was called went through

Going retro on us, eh?

For those who don't know, "Boylston Square" was supposed to rival the Prudential center in height, and go right on top of the Mass Pike on Mass Ave between Newbury St. and Boylston:

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/castevens12/boylstonsquare.gif

[quadratdackel]

On the other hand, I wouldn't even want to begin imagining what traffic would be like on the arterials around here with that addition
The only way to make it work would be if we somehow managed to populate it with lots of people who work in Back Bay, MIT, BU, NU, etc, even Longwood, who would mostly be walking to work. These are the same people who drive/T to the neighborhood every day causing all this traffic, so moving them into the tower would actually ease traffic. Of course, I'm not sure how you pull that off, especially since the apartments would probably have been on the high-end side, which means it'd probably pull lots of downtown workers, which would be bad for traffic, either car or Green Line.

Columbus Center, on the other hand, is close enough to downtown that many will walk, and others will take the Orange Line, which on that end is I believe substantially under capacity. This could be built to the sky without really messing up traffic so much.

[kz1000ps]

Going retro on us, eh?


Heh I guess. I just wish I could be able to say, "I live across the street from the 3rd tallest building in Boston! And I live in a student slum! whoop-dee-doooo!"

..But keep in mind, it was noted in the Bizjournal, I believe, maybe up to a half a year back that somewhere deep down in Millenium Parters' lair, this proposal is alive and being contemplated, but of course at (the) reduced height (proposed after the initial backlash).

[LeTaureau]

This thread has been quiet for a while. Construction was supposed to start this spring. Anybody notice any activity yet? Boston.com has a cool info-graphic set up:

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

[kz1000ps]

I walked by the site today. I'm happy to report that there are weeds growing ( :roll: ) on the plot that, if I remember correctly, is to be a playground (Clarendon and Stanhope). Anybody know what is going on with that, e.g. is work on that contingent on Columbus Center getting built?

I saw absolutely nothing going on concerning Columbus Center.

[Mike]

Well this was in the Globe on May 27th:


Columbus Center receives Turnpike Authority OK

Columbus Center, the mixed-use project that will rise above a deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike, has cleared the last big hurdle in the permitting process, a spokesman for Winn Development said. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority said it executed ground- and air-rights lease agreements after the governor's office signed off on the deal. With an estimated cost of $624 million , the project envisions 450 residences, a hotel, retail space, and public parks. Construction on the deck should begin within a month, and the project could be completed by 2010 . (Chris Reidy)


Link (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/05/27/rival_loses_appeal_to_revive_boston_scientific_law suit/)

[callahan]

Turnpike News

Columbus Center Project Ground and Air Rights Lease Agreements

Chairman Matthew J. Amorello announces that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and CUIP-WINN Columbus Center LLC have executed the Ground and Air Rights Lease Agreements for the development and construction of the Columbus Center project on air rights over the Turnpike in Boston known as Air Rights Parcels 16, 17, 18 and 19, located between Clarendon Street and Arlington Street. CUIP-WINN Columbus Center LLC is a joint venture entity established by Winn Development Company/WDC Development Associates Limited Partnership and its equity partner, California Urban Investment Partners, LLC. The Leases have a term of 99 years.

Chairman Amorello stated, "This is great news for new development in the City, creating jobs and economic development opportunities. This is also great news for toll payers as a source of non-toll revenue to cover operation and maintenance costs of the Metropolitan Highway System."

Amorello also noted, "This development shows air rights developments have great value and are buildable. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority continues to be a national leader in air rights development." The MTA was the first public transportation authority to use air rights with the development of the Prudential Center in Boston and Star Market in Newton in 1963. Chairman Amorello went on to say "We want to express our appreciation to the Office of the Governor for their review and approval of this agreement."

The Project will consist of 450 new housing units, a hotel, three new public parks, new retail and parking and will cover the turnpike and adjacent MBTA tracks, shielding the surrounding area from the view and noise of the highway and create new city blocks with new, active street walls. The project will significantly improve the connection of the South End, Back Bay, and Bay Village neighborhoods. The total project cost will exceed $600 million.

The Columbus Center project consists of:

Parcel 16: a 35-story, 608,000 square foot building containing a hotel of up to 162 rooms, approximately 162 residential condominium units, a health club, parking for approximately 186 cars, and street level restaurant and retail space;

Parcel 17: an 11-story, 300,000 square foot building containing approximately 151 residential condominium units with parking for approximately 98 cars and street level restaurant and retail space and a public park of approximately 24,000 square feet;

Parcel 18: a seven-story, 171,000 square foot building containing approximately 134 residential town house condominium units and street-level grocery and daycare space of approximately 23,000 square feet surrounding and screening a parking garage for approximately 633 cars, and a 2,000 square foot public park; and

Parcel 19: an 11,400 square foot public park.

In addition to covering the transportation corridor and the creation of the three new public parks described above, other public benefits of the Columbus Center project include:

*44 affordable housing units on-site and 22 off-site affordable units

*Signature architectural design by CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares Inc. The buildings have been designed to respond to the principles and guidelines for development of Turnpike air rights set forth in the "Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston" prepared by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in June, 2000.

*350 new permanent jobs

*2000 construction jobs

*Significant new real estate, hotel, and sales taxes for the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

*Improvements to Back Bay Station

Deck General Contractor: J.F. White Company, Framingham, MA

Building General Contractor: Suffolk Construction Company, Boston, MA

[tocoto]

and the project could be completed by 2010 .

That's a long time, I'd love to see this project start.

[justin]

Given the size and the complexity, 2010 actually sounds pretty optimistic to me.

justin

[Lurker]

Trilogy has taken 3 years, this is a larger and more complex project partially being built at night over a highway, 4 years sounds right if nothing goes awry during construction.

[quadratdackel]

These signs that Columbus Center might actually be moving forward are very relieving. For a while I wondered if it might never be built. This is a great project and will make that part of town a whole lot nicer, even though it got shrunk so much. (Originally, there were supposed to be two 35-40 story towers instead of one. Someone here on the old forum had the interesting suggestion that the second tower may have been a bargaining scheme- the developer proposed two, hoping for one.)

However, my much, much bigger concern is what this project means for other projects, especially air rights projects along the "high spine"- the stretch above 90 from around South Station to at least Mass Ave. This stretch of highway was long ago intended to be covered with skyscrapers; thus far, only the Prudential Center and Copley Place have been built. Given the endless agony Columbus Center has gone through, it seems less likely we'll see the spine filled out any time soon. Granted, some of this agony was the developer's own making, i.e. the asking for public funds for construction which are supposed to be going to "blighted" areas. However, fierce community insistence that skyscrapers are inappropriate for the area (an area mere blocks from the tallest building in New England) might give pause to other would-be high spine developers. This is a real shame, because few other projects (North Point comes to mind as one) so dramatically improve the street-level quality of the city. (Sure, the Pru & Copley projects are shoddy from the street level, but we know better than that by now.)

[castevens]

Someone here on the old forum had the interesting suggestion that the second tower may have been a bargaining scheme- the developer proposed two, hoping for one

I wouldn't put it past them at all. Anything and everything will be shrunken down, so go for more than you actually want

[statler]

Columbus Center wins tax credits worth millions

By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | June 30, 2006

Developers of the massive Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike won state and Boston city tax credits yesterday that could be worth $21.5 million, after failing in several previous attempts to get public assistance.

The Economic Assistance Coordinating Council , a public-private body that oversees government incentives for development, approved the credits, despite a warning from Massachusetts Inspector General Gregory W. Sullivan that Columbus Center did not appear to qualify.

That incentive program is ``exclusively for projects that cannot be developed through the `ordinary operations of private enterprise,' " Sullivan wrote to the council Wednesday, citing the program's guidelines. ``Clearly this project was designed to be developed through the ordinary operations of private enterprise."

Winn Development plans an urban village of 1.3 million square feet over the turnpike and surrounding area, bridging the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods. The project includes a 35-story tower with hotel rooms, condominiums and stores, as well as several additional condo buildings and four parks.

Costs for Columbus Center, a decade in the making, have recently ballooned to $624 million, partly because of sharply higher costs for building materials.

One dispute is whether Winn promised to build the project entirely without public funding. His critics say Winn made such a promise, something Winn denies.

During the lengthy permitting process, the issue of public aid, including tax credits, and the project's size became intertwined.

When neighborhood residents complained Columbus Center was too big, they said Winn responded that the project needed to be that big to be profitable enough to attract private investors and not need public assistance.

In these critics' view, the developer used that argument to win key permits for a large project, and then later asked for public aid without reducing the size of the project.

Winn vehemently disputes that account.

``From the get-go, public support was always built into this project," said Alan Eisner , a Winn spokesman.

Addressing some of the newly approved tax credits, Eisner said that government officials ``really stepped up to the plate and provided a meaningful and appreciated portion of the economic resources required to move this project forward."

``It's not appropriate to use taxpayer dollars to enhance a developer's profits," said state Representative Martha M. Walz , a Boston Democrat.

But Deb Shufrin , an economic assistance council member, said the incentive program's goal is to promote job creation, and Columbus Center is expected to generate many jobs.

``We disagree with the inspector general's interpretation" of the guidelines, Shufrin said.

Senior assistant inspector general Jack McCarthy said his office is limited to making recommendations. ``We can't force the council to do anything," he said.

The Globe reported in December that Winn was seeking more than $50 million total in public aid.

But the Legislature recently rejected a $4.3 million grant, and Eisner said Winn learned last month that its request for federal tax credits with a present-day value of $15 million was rejected.

Eisner noted that Columbus Center would include more than $40 million in public benefits such as parks, affordable housing, and a groundwater recovery system.

Construction is expected to begin in about 60 days, Eisner said.

Chris Reidy can be reached at reidy@globe.com.
Link (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/06/30/columbus_center_wins_tax_credits_worth_millions/)

[ChunkyMonkey]

Construction begins in 60 days? Unbelievable, I never thought this was going to go through. I probably won't believe until groundbreaking.

[atlantaden]

This project was a decade in the making; as shameful for the city as Fan Pier currently is. All the lost revenue (probably in the millions) to the city and state along with the increased cost of the on-site housing due to the attempt to please every single person possibly affected by the projects. There has got to be a happy medium for both the city/community and developers to avoid such a complex and time consuming process in order to get something built. It took probably 4 years for the 300+ housing units to be built at Charles River Park on property that is already in existence. That project alone should have had at least an additional 400 units but for residents (mostly renters) who put up such a huge fuss.

[Mike]

I probably won't believe until groundbreaking.



Good idea. This project seems to be on perma-delay. I'm sure sometime around 60 days from now we'll be reading how construction could begin by the end of the year. What happened to the 30 days reported last month? Why is it 60 now? :evil:

[lexicon506]

There seems to be a lot of money available to be given away by the government. My question is: why isn't it going to people like MassHort so they can build their garden under glass? I know there's probably some explanation why MassHort couldn't possibly get public benefits....but $50 million would pay for half of the entire project! The YMCA, Boston Museum Proj., and New Center could also benefit greatly from such massive public funds.

[quadratdackel]

^ I'm not too thrilled about $21M in public money for the Columbus Center, but if it's giving $42M in public amenities and will generate millions in tax revenue, well that's something that the YMCA, etc isn't doing. That's not to say that the public wouldn't get more bang for the buck funding those groups than the CC. I really have no idea how to answer that question.

[callahan]

Crane's up! Looks like work is getting under way.

[shiz02130]

Are you serious?!? I biked by there last two nights ago and I didn't see a crane...

[KentXie]

Picture, picture anybody?! This is gonna get exciting. When is The Clarendon going up? It will look awesome with two towers going up at the same time right next to each other.

[callahan]

I'm looking at the correct site, right? It's right by Mistral restaurant and Hard Rock Cafe. Am I wrong?

It's a small crane and they've suctioned off a large part of the area before the freeway.

[callahan]

I'm looking at the correct site, right? It's right by Mistral restaurant and Hard Rock Cafe. The crane and activity I saw was at the freeway directly across from Stanhope Street Am I wrong?

It's a small crane and they've suctioned off a large part of the area before the freeway.

[LeTaureau]

I'm looking at the correct site, right? It's right by Mistral restaurant and Hard Rock Cafe. Am I wrong?

It's a small crane and they've suctioned off a large part of the area before the freeway.

Actually, is that the site for The Clarendon?

[Mike]

We've had a few false alarms with that childrens park, I hope that's not what this is. We need pics! 8)

[callahan]

Well the site that they have sectioned off is right next to the open air space by the Turnpike. If you were to walk out the door of Bertucci's restaurant and walk straight up to the freeway that is where the site is.

[kz1000ps]

I walked by there an hour ago, and although I didn't see any cranes, the triangular parking lot at the intersection of Berkeley and Columbus Ave has a sign up saying it is to be used solely for "Columbus Center Project" 24 hrs a day. The sign also listed J.F. White Contracting and their address, and there was a New Hampshire Boring medium-duty truck parked in the lot, though there were no workers to be seen.

So it looks like things ARE getting going, even if this alleged crane remains somewhat elusive at the moment.

[callahan]

If we're talking about the same site, and I think we are, there were a few guys in hardhats there this morning. There was also a small crane parked on the side that is right neat Mistral. Also, as I said, there is a section fenced off. In any case, there's action in the area.

[BostonSkyGuy]

Someone here on the old forum had the interesting suggestion that the second tower may have been a bargaining scheme- the developer proposed two, hoping for one

I wouldn't put it past them at all. Anything and everything will be shrunken down, so go for more than you actually want

Thinking about it, this project is one of the many (maybe the best as well)examples of something being proposed and being shot down to the point where the original plans/proposal are not even close to what the actual final plans/product will be.

If the thinking was "propose two buildings, they'll shoot it down and we'll get one" then they are geniuses. I think if it's come to that, it's a sad editorial on how bad Boston is for developers. If you want to build two identical 600-foot towers, propose four 1,000 footers. It's funny and sad at the same time.

[kz1000ps]

Walked by the site again today. First, nothing was going on with the Clarendon - the lot was still full of cars.

With CC, at the triangular parking lot, the boring truck's bore was down and extended into the ground, probably testing the soil conditions(?). The cylinder was only about 16" in diameter, and it didn't look like it had been driven down too far. A backhoe has also appeared on site.

Still no crane to be seen anywhere.

[bosdevelopment]

cranes won't be up for a while - looking at a development like the mandarin it was a solid 6 months before one went up.

[kz1000ps]

Concerning the Mandarin, it was really more like a year from the time they started dismantling the old ring road setup.

I guess the alleged crane vanished..

[TC]

cranes won't be up for a while - looking at a development like the mandarin it was a solid 6 months before one went up.

The mandarin has an underground parking garage and the excavation is a slow process. Also slowing them down is the need to tie back the slurry walls as they excavate.

The columbus center will have it's own set of issues but they have little to no excavation. The foundation system has to be either piles or caissons due to the limited space. With the foundations installed they will then deck over the turnpike and then we are in to the vertical construction phase.

[callahan]

I walk by there every day. I talked to somebody who is working on the sit of The Columbus Center. They currently have a section by the Mass Pike fenced off and have done what looks like some leveling of the ground. They also have put some spikes in the ground, although I have no idea for what. The guy I talked to said that they are currently trying to secure the buildings immediately surrounding the area. Because there are historic buildings they need to make sure they won't be damaged by the construction in the area.

In any case, the other day I saw, from a distance, something that resembled a small crane. But, it was not there when I was last at the site. But there is work being done.

[PaulC]

From this weeks South End News:

The city, John Hancock Financial Services and Columbus Center developers, CassinWinn Development, have reached an agreement over a small plot of land that, for years, made life complicated for the Columbus Center development team. The agreement paves the way for the construction of Frieda Garcia Park on that plot. It’s named after the South End community activist who served as President of the United South End Settlements for 20 years. The agreement also commits CassinWinn to starting construction on the Columbus Center this year.



http://www.southendnews.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=80699828C2F54D479252FB585E3E4B99

[callahan]

Ha! Yes, and that small park is, I believe, where they have cleared the land and fenced it off. They are doing some work in the area.

Thanks for posting that article.....Seeeee, I'm not crazy! :lol:

[kz1000ps]

a-HA! So that's what's been going on with everything. It's about time things got going. And to think that pile driving will be starting in a month ... before we know it a stretch of the pike the length of that covered up by the Prudential Center will be decked over forever more.

and callahan, I never saw a crane on any site, so you're still crazy :wink:

[PaulC]

I walked by the parking lot at Berkeley and Columbus yesterday and noticed it had been closed and surrounded by a chain link fence. This means work is actually about to begin. This is not the same site where the 'spite' park is going.

The city requires the decks to be covered no latter than a set number of months after construction starts, all decks must be built at once and there are limits as to how long before the actual buildings have to be started once the decks are finished.
My memory is hazy on this, does anyone know the actual details?

[bostonman]

Yeah I took pics awhile ago, they have started the work on some sort of base along the edge closest to the highway. There is also rebar clearly exposed. I am guessing work has been going on for a little while. I will get more pics when I go into Boston later this week.

[kz1000ps]

Bostonman that site that you took pictures of (next to the Hard Rock Cafe and Bertucci's) is the "spite" park/playground that PaulC mentioned. It's been in that state for somewhere around a year by now. Read the South End News link PaulC posted 5 posts up and all will be made clear.

[bostonman]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I had a funny feeling that wasn't the plot for the Columbus Center, but then I saw the base and rebar, and thought that it was the base. Oh well.

[bostonman]

I went by the Frieda Garcia Park today, they have definitely started making notable progress. They have started the base for something, and they are digging and marking other places as well. Pics on my site, and I will post them here soon.

One question, the Columbus Center will be going into the area near that plot, right?

[kz1000ps]

The tower component will go in the plot just to the south of the Garcia Park, extending over the turnpike to Columbus Ave, but the other low rise portions will extend to the east for a ways. It's a big project covering up nearly as much of the turnpike as the Prudential Center did.

Lol, I feel like the "make everything clear" fairy, but go to the link I posted, and everything will be made clear once again :)

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

[bostonman]

Thanks for the link. That does make things a lot clearer.

Here are the pics I got today:
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0470.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0471.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0472.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0473.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0474.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0475.jpg

[bostonman]

Is Columbus Center up in the air?
Major investor says the $650m project is at risk without more aid, new lease
By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | August 25, 2006

A major investor in the proposed $650 million Columbus Center mixed-use development says the urban village to be built over Interstate 90 is ``at risk" unless the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority renegotiates more favorable terms for its air-rights lease and the state considers more public assistance.

``Our ability to proceed with this development without restructuring of lease payments and receipt of necessary state funding is at risk," the investor wrote in a letter to the authority obtained by the Globe.

The letter, which notes Columbus Center is facing cost overruns, came just as the developer was getting ready to begin construction on a huge project that proposes building housing, a hotel, and parks on a deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike. When completed, something once expected to happen in 2010, it would reconnect the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods, which are separated by the turnpike.

The investor saying the project is at risk is a joint venture of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and MacFarlane Urban Realty Co., a San Francisco real estate investment firm.

Because of soaring construction costs, Columbus Center's price tag has jumped $26 million since the spring to $650 million , said Roger Cassin , managing partner of WinnDevelopment of Boston, the project's developer; deck construction costs have increased to $118 million from $54 million in three years.

For the entire project, ``we're now looking at a shortfall of $17 million to $25 million," he said.

That must be addressed before Winn can close on a construction loan of more than $400 million, Cassin said.

One way to address the shortfall is to get more public assistance.

Critics contend Winn promised during the permitting process that it would not seek public assistance, something Cassin denies. The project is in line to receive about $22 million in various forms of public assistance, he said.

``Taxpayers should not be subsidizing developers' profits," said state Representative Martha M. Walz , a Boston Democrat.

A request to restructure the air-rights lease is ``code for saying we want cheaper rents," she said. ``If costs are going up, the developer should take smaller profits."

The joint venture's letter was addressed to John Cogliano, who recently became Turnpike Authority chairman after Matthew Amorello's departure.

A copy of the letter was sent to the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency , which has earmarked a $15 million low-interest loan to Columbus Center. It made a copy of the letter available to the Globe.

Calls to Calpers were referred to MacFarlane, which declined to comment.

Dated Aug. 18 and signed by MacFarlane's chief operating officer, Thomas Klugherz , the letter criticizes the Turnpike Authority for repeatedly refusing to meet with the Columbus Center team. Klugherz argued the lease needs to be renegotiated because market conditions have changed. While construction costs escalated, the housing market softened, diminishing the money the project can make from selling its 450 condos.

``The authority's continuing lack of response has put project viability at risk," wrote Klugherz, requesting a meeting with Cogliano.

That meeting could happen as early as next week, said Jon Carlisle , Cogliano's spokesman.

``Whatever decision is made will reflect the best interests of toll payers and taxpayers," Carlisle said.

Klugherz's letter noted that Winn has invested $36.5 million in the project and that the joint venture has agreed to provide up to $140 million.

The long-term lease currently calls for Winn to pay $12.2 million , Cassin said. In addition, the Turnpike Authority would receive 1 percent of the proceeds of resales of the project's condos. According to Winn, that's worth $80 million to $100 million.

It took years to complete the permitting process for Columbus Center. Critics complained the project was too massive. They claimed Winn argued that the project needed to be big so it could attract investors who would pay for it with private financing.

``They said, `It must be gigantic, or we'll go broke,' " recalled Ned Flaherty , a project critic.

Critics were upset because they said that Winn sought public assistance without reducing the project's size.

According to Winn, Columbus Center will provide 2,500 union construction jobs and create 350 permanent jobs. Winn says it will provide $40 million in public benefits, including four public parks and 44 units of on-site affordable housing.

Councilor at Large Stephen J. Murphy, of Hyde Park, said Columbus Center is supported by many public officials. ``It would be a travesty if this falls through," he said.

Cassin said that won't happen.

``Nobody's going to let this fail," he said.

Chris Reidy can be reached at reidy@globe.com.

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.


I don't know about you guys, but I really hope that this doesn't impact the project too much. I would really like to see the pike covered and that immediate area spruced up a bit. I hope this is an issue that can be resolved quickly.

[Mike]

Critics: Don’t redo pike air-rights deal!
By Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald Business Reporter
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - Updated: 07:29 AM EST


Development over the Massachusetts Turnpike through Boston’s heart was pitched as a potential gold mine for taxpayers weary of Big Dig cost overruns.

But the hope of extra revenue to offset tolls and highway construction costs may turn out to be a mirage, critics say, as rising construction prices and bitter controversy threaten to torpedo the flagship $650 million Columbus Center air-rights project.

The Turnpike earlier this year cut a $12 million lease deal with the Columbus Center development team, led by local builders Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin, for a seven-acre stretch of air rights between the Back Bay and South End. A cut of future condo sales is expected to bring in another $80 million to $100 million.

But faced with skyrocketing construction costs, Columbus Center’s lead investor now wants to restructure the rental payments and possibly seek additional public subsidies.

Rising prices have more than doubled the cost of building out the Turnpike deck to $118 million, noted Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the project.

“Unless the state comes to the table and helps us figure out a way to reduce or eliminate a shortfall of $17 to $25 million, this project could collapse,” Eisner said.

However, critics say the deal is too generous already - and could pose big problems for taxpayers if developers seek similar deals for big air-rights projects proposed near Fenway Park and Chinatown.

The $12 million rental deal is below the $26 million value an appraiser hired by the Turnpike came up with. In downtown Boston, available development sites can sell for as high as $30 million an acre, notes Ned Flaherty, co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods and a South End activist.

“The price of the first few parcels sets the price formula for all the others,” Flaherty said.

Meanwhile, union and community supporters of the big development are warning that 2,500 construction jobs are at stake. “It’s a huge loss,” warns Jim Coyle, head of the Metropolitan Boston Building Trades Council.

But State Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay) argued against further concessions, noting that the developer was given permission to build a large, 400-foot high-rise complex with the understanding it would be privately financed. “The first rent reductions and subsidies were not justified and subsequent rent reductions and subsidies are also not justified,” Walz said.



Link (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=154888)

[atlantaden]

Lesson to be learned by those who oppose Boston development projects; drag out the approval process long enough for costs to skyrocket and wait for the developer to throw in the towel if incentives are not provided. Lesson for the city; allow the approval process to drag on long enough for costs to skyrocket and then give tax incentives to the developers or loose out on the whole deal. I sure hope the city has learned their lesson and does something to shorten the approval process from many years to several years. This is an awesome project for the city and it would be a shame to loose it.

[Ron Newman]

I very much want to see ths project built, but by some other developer who doesn't believe that extortion is a proper way to do business. Winn and Cassin should be ashamed of themselves.

[tocoto]

Boston needs growth this kind of growth, it really is hurting for jobs and housing plus the benfits of hiding the pike and reconnected the neighborhoods are immense. In just about any other city, the developers would be paid for their public service, here the state wants to make money on the erection of public amenities.

Boston was on a roll for a long time and people have gotten used to demanding money from developers. The atmosphere has changed, we lost Gilette, Fleet, John Hanconck, New Enland Life... the list goes on. Boston will begin to decline without new projects and the city doesn't have nearly the clout it once did. Obviously the city is having a lot of trouble getting big projects started.

The few neighbors who opposed this project for so many years did a great disservice to the rest of the city.

[atlantaden]

If extortion is a word to be applied here, it should be applied where it rightfully belongs, to the neighborhood groups who were given gazillions of concessions (neighborhood improvements) from Cassin/Winn. If this project wasn't dragged on over many years now we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The discussion would be, instead, about how awesome the rising steel of Columbus Center looks over the turnpike.

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I very much want to see ths project built, but by some other developer who doesn't believe that extortion is a proper way to do business. Winn and Cassin should be ashamed of themselves.

shut up

[bostonman]

Couple things:

This first thing I doubt is something substantial. However, I saw a small parking lot that was filled with construction signs, a couple backhoes, and something that looks like it could be used as a construction headquarters. (Pics later). As I said, I doubt it is anything substantial, but I hadn't noticed it before. Another thing is that they are putting up road work signs on the pike below the bridges. Once again, probably just roadwork, but I hadn't noticed those either.

This next thing is more substantial. On the Frieda Garcia Park plot, some sort of structure is starting to go up, and other work looks to be progressing. Pics later on.

[kz1000ps]

^ Go back a page to pg. 3 and read my post at the top of the page.. is that the site you're talking about?

shut up

Come on Dude, are you trying to create enemies for yourself? Your views may clash with Ron and many others here, but at the least you can show some respect when you post. Instead you only chime in here and there when you seem to be most pissed off at other's political leanings (a great time to open your mouth by the way). Good for you that you're a libertarian 'til death do you part - now contribute something constructive to the conversation! sheesh

[bostonman]

Yes that was the site. Just as I thought, really wasn't anything important.

[aws129]

This is ridiculous. Taxpayers are supposed to shell out money so that a developer can make a few extra bucks? Give me a break.

I want this project to get built as much as anyone and believe it should have been allowed to go higher. And -- yes -- this approval process was unnecessarily drawn out...Regardless, however, we should not be subsidizing this.

[DudeUrSistersHot]

This is ridiculous. Taxpayers are supposed to shell out money so that a developer can make a few extra bucks? Give me a break.

I want this project to get built as much as anyone and believe it should have been allowed to go higher. And -- yes -- this approval process was unnecessarily drawn out...Regardless, however, we should not be subsidizing this.

The developers are subsidizing the public by extorting millions of dollars in "public benefits". It's not even remotely wrong for the devloper to try to get his money back from this.

[bostonman]

I got some new pics of the Frieda Garcia Park on 8/30:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0540.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0539.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0538.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h4/themeparkfreak/Construction/Frieda%20Garcia%20Park/IMGP0537.jpg

[kz1000ps]

From today

http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/1531/columbus1wy3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Merper]

wow. the progress is amazing.
the concrete bunker is now complete!

[kz1000ps]

Deal near to give Columbus Center plan a Boost

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | December 5, 2006

The troubled, long-delayed Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike on the edge of Boston's Back Bay, with a price tag now in excess of $650 million, is close to getting a life-saving financial boost from two agencies this month, according to a senior state official.

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board member Tom Trimarco said the agency is considering letting WinnDevelopment defer payment of large portions of the $12 million in lease payments that the company owes in exchange for an increase in the amount of those payments. The Turnpike owns the air rights over the highway.

"I'm hoping we're going to reach a decision and present something to the board" of the Turnpike Authority at one of two meetings this month, said Trimarco, who is also the state secretary of administration and finance. "We're still talking with the developer."

WinnDevelopment is proposing to build a complex of towers with hotel, residential, office, and retail space and parks over four blocks of the below-grade Turnpike roadway.

The company was awarded development rights for Columbus Center from the Turnpike almost 10 years ago, and the project's cost has since more than doubled. One of WinnDevelopment's partners in the deal, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, said in August that Columbus Center was at risk of not getting built unless it received more favorable financial terms. It estimated a shortfall of $17 million to $25 million, and as construction prices have continued to push up since August that gap has grown.

"Time is of the essence," said Trimarco .

The Turnpike board is holding a special session tomorrow to deal with a different matter, the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway downtown. But Trimarco said the board could take up the Columbus Center matter as well. The Turnpike board is also scheduled to meet later in December.

Trimarco said WinnDevelopment is negotiating separately with MassHousing, the state's affordable housing bank, for about $6 million in loans, at market interest rates, following a $15 million loan the agency had previously agreed to provide under more favorable terms.

A spokesman for WinnDevelopment, Alan Eisner, said the company had been told by state officials that any modifications to its lease "could not impose an additional burden on taxpayers. So we've been trying to deal with that reality while we figure out a way to go forward."

Opponents of Columbus Center have strongly objected to the use of any public help for the project.

If struck, the deals with the two government agencies could put WinnDevelopment on track to begin construction this spring, real estate executives who have been briefed on the negotiations said yesterday. They asked not to be identified because no final deal has been reached.

Increased payments to the Turnpike and MassHousing would come from a resale fee that would be imposed on buyers of the project's condominium residences. It is currently set at 1 percent of the price of a unit. Under the accord now being negotiated, that fee would be increased to 1.5 percent or more, Trimarco said.

Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.

© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Mike]

construction could start in the spring, lol. we heard the same thing both this year and last.

[Ron Newman]

I'd like to see this built but I really dislike the developer's "subsidize us or we won't build" attitude.

[tocoto]

This project is beneficial to the city on so many different levels. Virtually any other city in the country would be gladly subsidizing something like this. If it doesn't get built, it's a real loss for Boston and a condemnation of our ridiculous and expensive approval process. Sometimes I wonder how far into obscurity Boston will let itself fall before people realize a city must invest in itself to survive.

[IMAngry]

I wish developers could pay for their projects all on their own.

Maybe the city/state/feds should pay for infrastructure, but that's about it.

[justin]

Yup, five years from now they'd dismantle CC brick by brick, take down the turnpike cover and reassemble them all in Rahway.

justin

[ablarc]

.... whatever happened to the "free market"?
It was slain by the "approval process."

If the developer can't make it on his own, don't build.
Here the developer's been handicapped.

I don't think the city or state should offer direct contributions
If they make the process onerous and expensive they should offer compensation. After all, they're supposedly getting something out of all this, and they should pay for it as eveyone does who gets something worthwhile.

Or if it's not worth anything to them, they should discontinue the process. (That's the alternative I favor.)

[aws129]

Columbus Center has been handicapped far more by construction costs than the approval process (which was indeed onerous but probably not much worse than what a similar project would experience in any other big American city).

Obviously, the project will provide benefit to the city. The issue is one of priorities; should we be subsidizing this or things like education, healthcare, or homeless programs?

[Scott]

^ Loaning millions of dollars from the affordable housing bank is troubling but in theory the bank should profit reasonably while creating affordable units.

[IMAngry]

You're right, the Columbus Center wouldn't disappear, like a baseball team. And it won't "relocate", like a business.

However, I am pretty much assuming the $12 million in lease payments (each year, or over a set period of time, or what?) will never make their way to the turnpike authority; it will be the first thing given away, if the developer cries poor.

I don't know if I have a problem with that ... yes, the land (or "air") has value, but who cares ... the city benefits from the property taxes, so it's a wash.

I just think people should be honest. They want something for free, so say so.

I am particularly steamed by a similar situation down the street from there.

The Renaissance Charter School got a sweetheart deal when they bought the old UMASS Boston headquarters building - $2 million, plus a low-cost loan for $12 million.

Now, they're selling it. They'll pocket the cash? Why? They paid below market back in the mid-1990's, and now they're taking the money and running.

It's our money, as taxpayers.

[shawn]

In a true free market, the developers would have been allowed to build to a height at which cost vs. profits could be maximized. Instead, the developers have been limited to a less profitable height because other interests have been given priority.

[Ron Newman]

A "true free market" is a dubious concept when we're talking about building on air rights above a publicly-owned highway. This isn't private property in the usual sense of that term.

[TC]

I personally don't have a problem with the city/state providing funding for this project. It is a good project that will provide benefits long after this initial 'public loan'.

There are a couple of reasons the developer is looking for funds. First the construction costs have gone up second the real estate market has softened. Both of these are out of the developers control.

However, people seem to forget all of the concessions that were squeezed into the budget to get the project where it is today. Originally this project was only going to cover 2 parcels, but because of the pseudo zoning document called the Civic Vision, they were forced to include a 3rd parcel to increase building height on parcel 16. Then for good measure a forth parcel (19) was added as a park at the very end because everyone wants more open space.

The developers made these changes without increasing the overall square footage of the project. I don't have the numbers, but I actually think the square footage decreased from the original proposal.

If anyone knows about development, then you will know it is all about square footage and how much money you can get in return per foot. The banks/lenders are only going to loan a developer money if they think they are going to make money on there investment. Sometimes I think people believe that developers are sitting on piles of cash. Truth is that on a construction project like this they will be getting funds released to them on a monthly basis. The banks will have there own inspectors to verify percent complete, etc.

Developers are really just the middleman coordinating these projects for a fee.

[InTheHood]

I'm not sure that both sides here (pro-Gov't aid and anti-Gov't aid) are missing the point.

On the one hand it's not just a question of the approval process ... yes this adds costs but frankly those are all "sunk costs" and completely irrelevant to the current calculus of whether or not Columbus Center gets built. I don't mean to pick a fight with anyone, but sometimes I get exasperated by repetitive posts that suggest that we'd have fifty more skyscrapers if only the permitting process were more streamlined, efficient, and permissive. While red tape does cause some distortions, and I also get exasperated by some of the extremes, the real reason projects like this stall is basic economics. They are risky. Look at what's happened to the condo market lately, and think what it takes to market hundreds of units on the very high end. That's ultimately more important to the delay on CC than even the run-up in the price of steel and has zippo to do with the (completed) permitting process.

On the other hand, those who sniff that it should all be left to the market and are troubled by the prospect of a subsidy seem to be ignoring the reality that it is ungodly expensive to build over a highway. By definition these projects face a huge handicap versus competitors. Case in point: the Clarendon project, about fifty feet away from CC, which will be marketing high-end condos to the exact same target customers, seems to be moving more quickly. Why? Because it's so much cheaper to build on solid ground. Think about the logistical challenge of building a complex with traffic whizzing underneath - the expense of the police details, the off-hours constraints, etc. For this reason, the CC developer was allowed to build a bit taller than he otherwise would have been allowed to, and that's also why the City did not push for a more competitive process when CC was put to bid. But it's far from clear that these "little edges" give the developer enough help to offset the natural advantage enjoyed by non-air rights projects. If we "left this all to the free market" we might NEVER get a project built over a highway. The Pru/Copley projects had significant baked-in subsidies. Think about this logically ... if there wasn't a huge difference in costs to build over a highway, why isn't the FDR Drive one long tunnel? It's not like the good citizens of Manhattan couldn't envision the benefits of doing so ...

[kz1000ps]

Has the parking lot where the Clarendon will rise shut down yet? Not to dispute you, InTheHood, but I don't get the sense that things with the Clarendon are moving much faster than at CC.

[InTheHood]

Fair point, kz. Clarendon began years after CC but also seems slow ... the one sign of progress is the Post Office relocation.

[kz1000ps]

And a good sign of progress that is. But, to answer my own question, the parking lot is still operating as of 12/7.

[Mike]

Developer disappointed with Mass. Turnpike offer
December 21, 2006


THE REGION
Columbus Center developer Arthur Winn, seeking more favorable terms on his lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority so he can get started on the $650 million mixed-use project over the turnpike between the South End and Back Bay, said he was disappointed in a package that the Turnpike Authority gave him. "We did not get what our equity partners asked for or what they needed to guarantee that this project will go forward," said Alan Eisner of WinnDevelopment . Winn, facing a funding gap of up to $25 million, recently secured an additional loan from Mass. Housing and had sought to defer lease payments to the Turnpike Authority, in exchange for an increase in those payments later. Turnpike officials would not comment. (Thomas C. Palmer Jr.)




Link (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/21/developer_disappointed_with_mass_turnpike_offer/)

[Ron Newman]

Any more stalling, and the Turnpike should de-designate this developer and take new bids from someone who actually wants to build.

[Ron Newman]

Maybe they shouldn't have bid on the air rights if they didn't think they had enough money to build? In some ways, this reminds me of the Mass Hort fiasco.

[PerfectHandle]

Dude...let's drop the "you're so dumb" crap.

The public benefits do add to the cost, but I would argue that it is reasonable for the City to put them in the development guidelines as a way to guarantee a development that provides high quality of life. The trick is to make sure the project gets built, since the high quality of life guaranteed by the public benefits is moot if there's no development.

[Scott]

This is a discussion forum where people exchange ideas. If you aren't mature enough to handle it don't post here.

[kz1000ps]

Hate to keep this going, but the "occasional" insult is become a "frequent direct attack." Very annoying and immature.

[palindrome]

Lets get back on topic gentlemen.

Anyways, is this something that would make the developer reconsider building this, or is the columbus center getting built no matter what?

[xec]

Press release on the BRA website. Thought it was worth posting here.


City of Boston Wins Approval to Expand Empowerment Zone

Turnpike Air Rights Development Parcels Are Now in the ‘Zone’

The City of Boston today announced that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently granted approval to expand Boston’s Empowerment Zone (EZ.) The city’s EZ will now include all parcels identified as Turnpike Air Rights developable parcels – specifically, the air rights above the Massachusetts Turnpike described as Parcels 4 through 22 in the City’s “A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights” document. The city’s EZ, administered by Boston Connects, Inc. (BCI), links residents and neighborhoods to greater economic opportunity through job creation and skills training. The approval is a huge win for the city as it will go far in providing numerous job opportunities for EZ residents and allow for new businesses located within the new zone to take advantage of the EZ tax credits and bonds. Projects built using these air rights will now be directly linked to job opportunities for neighborhood residents.

Boston’s EZ includes 6.8 square miles of some of the City's most vibrant and diverse neighborhoods. Its nearly 60,000 residents, roughly 10% of the City's population, live in Chinatown, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, Mission Hill, Roxbury, the Seaport District, South Boston, and the South End.

The approval also allows for the City to add portions of already-developed air rights directly above the Turnpike. This area includes sections of Parcels 15 and 16, which includes pieces of the Hynes Convention Center, Prudential Center, Copley Mall and the John Hancock Center parking garage.

One of the cross-cutting goals of empowerment zones is to increase the number of job opportunities for EZ residents. To implement this goal, the federal government has made both wage and other business tax credits available to businesses located within the EZ. These businesses can take advantage of one of the EZ tax credits and claim up to $3,000 annually for each EZ resident they hire. Additionally, the City can issue bonds to make low interest loans to businesses located in the EZ for financing properties within the zone. For a full listing of the credits and bond opportunities visit www.bostonez.org and click on “tax credits.”

BCI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in charge of implementing the long-term vision of the EZ – providing for economic self-sufficiency for individuals, families and communities. Under the leadership of a 24-member governing board, BCI has been successful in linking some of the City's most needy residents and neighborhoods with new economic
opportunity-through job creation, daycare, skills training, alternative education or ESL. Since its inception, BCI has invested more than $14 million in programs and services, more than $64 million in EZ Bond financing and another $42 in EDI/HUD 108 dollars for a total $106 million investment in Boston’s EZ.

Press Contact: Jessica Shumaker, BRA, 617.918.4446.



Release Date: February 12, 2007

[IMAngry]

This is great news ... if you're an employer with offices or retail space at the Prudential Center or in the John Hancock Tower.


The approval also allows for the City to add portions of already-developed air rights directly above the Turnpike. This area includes sections of Parcels 15 and 16, which includes pieces of the Hynes Convention Center, Prudential Center, Copley Mall and the John Hancock Center parking garage.

That's awesome! Because no one needs tax credits like insurance companies, law firms, shoe stores, dress shops, and banks!

From HUD:

Businesses located in the Empowerment Zone can claim up to $3,000 annually for each Zone resident who has been employed for at least 90 days. Businesses can claim this credit for both new or current employees.

To claim the maximum credit, businesses must spend at least $15,000 on qualified wages and certain training and educational expenses paid or incurred on behalf of a Qualified Zone Employee. For those employees earning less than $15,000, businesses can claim a 20% credit on the annual employment expense. Click here to view IRS Form 8844 & Instructions and click here to determine if a particular address is in the Empowerment Zone.

[xec]

Actually, no. This is great news if you're trying to build a hotel. The passage worth quoting is this one:

the City can issue bonds to make low interest loans to businesses located in the EZ for financing properties within the zone.

And the relevant web page is not HUD but the one linked to in the press release. These two bits of info come from there:


Crosstown Center, Crosstown
This multi-use complex will open mid 2004 at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard. Phase I will include a 190-room hotel, over 15,000 feet of ground-level retail space, and a parking structure. Phase II will include offices and additional parking.

Upon completion, Crosstown Center will employ approximately 1500 workers.

The Boston Connects, Inc. Board has voted to support the use of $5 million in HUD 108/EDI loans and grants and $48 million in bonds to the Crosstown Center. In addition the Board will in vest $7 million as equity toward the construction of the hotel and garage.



Best Western Roundhouse Hotel, Newmarket
In early 2001 the Best Western Roundhouse Suites Hotel opened at 891 Massachusetts Avenue, the first hotel in an Empowerment Zone in the Northeast. Built in 1875 by the Roxbury Gaslight Company to store coal gas for city streetlamps and residential lighting, the building has been a warehouse since about 1906, although it has been largely vacant since the 1980s.

The abandoned former warehouse, known both as the Gasometer and the Roundhouse, retains the building's distinctive domed metal roof and each of the 92 two-room suites enjoys a view from the rounded exterior wall. An estimated 90 jobs were generated during construction and the hotel itself has created around 31 full-time and 10 part-time jobs.

The new hotel is expected to generate an estimated $150,000 in real estate taxes. The primary developer was WNW hospitality, who has earned a reputation for preserving local buildings and revitalizing underutilized properties, particularly those that are in severe stages of decay.

Total Development Cost: $10,000,000
EZ Bonds: $8,000,000

[IMAngry]

These things would be built, no matter what.

[kz1000ps]

Columbus Center Stick in Neutral

by Adam Martignetti - Courant News Writer
April 7 - April 13, 2007

A revised lease agreement with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) has not jump started the $650 million Columbus Center air rights project, which remains stalled by financial trouble.

A spokesperson for WinnDevelopment said there is no timetable to begin construction on the project, which received approval more than a year ago. Columbus Center, a mixed-use development consisting of a hotel, office space, retail space and housing, will be built on air rights Parcel 16, 17 and 18 over the Turnpike east of Back Bay Station.

"The project remains on hold while the financing is worked out," said Alan Eisner of Regan Communications. "The status quo hasn't changed in recent weeks."

This winter, WinnDevelopment received a new lease from the MTA which allows the developer to defer upfront payments in the exchange for larger ones in the future. Eisner described the arrangement as "revenue neutral" for the Turnpike Authority.

Columbus Center may also receive federal tax credits through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Empowerment Zone program, which encourages businesses to employ local residents. The City of Boston petitioned the government to make the entire stretch of air rights over the Turnpike eligible for Empowerment credits.

"It doesn't guarantee us tax credits, it just gets us in the mix," Eisner said.

Despite those potential financial benefits, Columbus Center is not any closer to breaking ground, due largely to construction costs that are increasing by as much as 20 percent per year. For example, the cost to build the concrete and steel deck to cover the Turnpike has escalated from $30 million to $140 million since the project was first conceived, eisner said.

The costs of the public benefits for the project, which include three public parks, affordable housing both on and off site and workforce development payments, may also increase beyond the original estimate of $40 million, eisner said. The final project cost could increase to as much as $700 million, depending on financing.

WinnDevelopment's lone equity partner in the project, the California Public Employees' retirement System, issued a statement in August saying that Columbus Center was in danger of not being built.

"Anything and everything is being explored at this point," Eisner said. "We're still optimistic, but a lot of things need to fall into place."

[JimboJones]

Did you type this story in? Courant's not online, is it?

Are you the reporter?

[kz1000ps]

I typed it in.

[statler]

I typed it in.
It's not Archboston.com, it's kz1000ps.com!

:D

[kz1000ps]

Ahh that made me laugh so hard, Statler.

So uh, hey Briv: when do I start getting paid?? :wink:

[ablarc]

Columbus Center is not any closer to breaking ground, due largely to construction costs that are increasing by as much as 20 percent per year. For example, the cost to build the concrete and steel deck to cover the Turnpike has escalated from $30 million to $140 million since the project was first conceived, eisner said.

The costs of the public benefits for the project, which include three public parks, affordable housing both on and off site and workforce development payments, may also increase beyond the original estimate of $40 million, eisner said. The final project cost could increase to as much as $700 million, depending on financing.

WinnDevelopment's lone equity partner in the project, the California Public Employees' retirement System, issued a statement in August saying that Columbus Center was in danger of not being built.

"Anything and everything is being explored at this point," Eisner said. "We're still optimistic, but a lot of things need to fall into place."
Columbus Center: the sick man of Boston. They have to run as hard as they can just to stay in the same place.

Thank you, NIMBYs, for having wasted the best project in recent memory.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Was it really NIMBY's though? It looks to me like it had more to do with changing economic conditions along with the expensive engineering challenges. That's not to say there weren't people against it but I'm sure most people would have favored development over a highway.

[KentXie]

Yup it is. Had the NIMBY not fought so hard for unreasonable reasons to stop this project, it would have been underway by now when construction cost was cheaper. I still remember the FAA concern. It was as ridiculous as it can be. The construction of the CC may cause cargo planes to carry less cargo due t othe fact it needs to climb higher and having a lower total weight is require to achieve that height. This would be reasonable had CC be located in South Boston and not right next to the 790 FEET JOHN HANCOCK TOWER RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

[Arch21]

you guys always mention NIMBY's what is NIMBY's

[KentXie]

you guys always mention NIMBY's what is NIMBY's
NIMBY=Not in my back yard. As in don't build your crap near me and we are fine. Will try to do anything, complain over the most petty things, give ridiculous reason, to kill a project, no matter how beneficial it is to them or to the city.

[TC]

Was it really NIMBY's though? It looks to me like it had more to do with changing economic conditions along with the expensive engineering challenges. That's not to say there weren't people against it but I'm sure most people would have favored development over a highway.

There were over 200 meetings with the neighborhood. That is absurd!!! Most of the issues were purely selfish reasons from individuals of the Ellis neighborhood association (with their president that lives across the street at 75 Clarendon). The fight against the height and the endless list of concessions were the driving force behind the meetings which in turn delayed the projects approval. This in turn resulted in the Columbus Center project missing the market.

Not only is this a loss for the city, it is a loss for the state because it has sent a precedent for turnpike development. Projects aren't getting built over the turnpike and Columbus Center is just the latest example. (Boylston Square is another along with the Fenway parcels behind Landsdowne Street)

This unfortunate track record can't go unnoticed by developers. The added difficulties with construction and NIMBY opposition have to be a factor when they bid on the parcels. This is going to be another problem for the Turnpike Authority when they try to develop all the Big Dig Parcels. And they have already budgeted these sales/leases as a source of revenue to re-coupe their cost overruns.

Sorry for the rant, but Columbus Center was probably one of the best projects to get approved by the BRA. Unfortunately for Boston, it wasn't approved in time.

[ablarc]

Guess we're stuck with that sulfurous Turnpike trench forever.

[kennedy]

I wish Boylston Place or whatever it was called went through

Going retro on us, eh?

For those who don't know, "Boylston Square" was supposed to rival the Prudential center in height, and go right on top of the Mass Pike on Mass Ave between Newbury St. and Boylston:

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/castevens12/boylstonsquare.gif

I agree that Boylston Square should have been built. It was a very neat building, and having a building that's not quite 1'000 feet but not below 650 feet would be a good starting point. Maybe, with that, the BRA would realize these skyscrapers are actually really cool.

[bosdevelopment]

I agree that Boylston Square should have been built. It was a very neat building, and having a building that's not quite 1'000 feet but not below 650 feet would be a good starting point. Maybe, with that, the BRA would realize these skyscrapers are actually really cool.

Moderator: Comment removed.

[lexicon506]

will you shut up?

sorry bosd, but that's not how you treat newcomers. We all started out making comments that didn't really contribute much to the forum, but eventually learned how to write "valuable" posts. If you just come out and attack newbies, we're never going to get more contributing members. After all, who wants to join a forum whose members are abrasive and mean?

[vanshnookenraggen]

You said it lex.

[ablarc]

will you shut up?

sorry bosd, but that's not how you treat newcomers.
Could it have been jocular? Maybe he just meant he didn't want to be reminded of this painful loss.

[InTheHood]

NIMBYs really didn't kill this one ... economics did. Sure, the process was lengthy, but that's all sunk time and cost (more of the former than the latter) and frankly the amount of time that it has now sat dormant with all approvals in place has eclipsed the amount of time spent in the process. The project had many influential supporters, including the strong backing of the Mayor's office, and some of the supportive neighbors even tried to broker a deal to ensure that CC would break ground before the Clarendon project down the street. Unfortunately, now that the developer has done more exhaustive math (they wisely did not nail down several of the engineering details until the project was approved) it appears that it will take a public subsidy to get it going. The run-up in steel prices and softening of the condo market certainly didn't help, but I understand there were other unforeseen engineering challenges to the decking that are also big factors.

We can only hope it will be revived - but in general it is a reminder about how difficult it is to pursue any air-rights development ... loads more expensive than developing a level site.

As I've remarked before on this board (sorry if I'm repeating myself) much as I love to see well-executed tall buildings in the right context, I get frustrated by the assumption made by some on this board that taller equals better economics. Beyond a certain height the reverse is true - the taller you go, the more of the floorplan that gets eaten by infrastructure, so costs per foot rise exponentially. There's a market for a few tall residential buildings with a costly view, but there are only so many Manny Ramirezes in this city. And there are is a market for some breathtaking office space but there are only so many Bain Capitals. In a city of Boston's density, economics generally point toward 10 or 12 story in-fill and renovations of underutilized buildings ... and blocky construction like we're seeing in the Seaport and North Point (no, I don't like how those areas are shaping up either) pencil out very well on a cost per foot basis. Something like Columbus Center is much more iffy, and it would have been iffy even if the trolls in the Ellis Neighborhood Association had greeted them with rose petals from the start.

To that end, Winthrop Square and SST might happen, but at this point they strike me as longshots, just like Columbus Center ... someone with very deep pockets needs to be prepared to take a big risk with more of a goal of "making a statement" than making money. That, after all, is how we got the Hancock tower. From an economic standpoint, JH would have been much better off sinking their 1970 dollars into a dozen five story office buildings in a park on 128 ... they realized this, of course, but they wanted to respond to the interloper (Pru) from New Jersey.

What holds us back from the vision many of us would like to see isn't the presence of NIMBYs but rather the relative absence of super-rich megalomaniacs. Think Dubai ...

[vanshnookenraggen]

Before you all flip out, I took the last 9 posts and moved them to a new thread, The Economics of Building in Boston (http://architecturalboston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738).

The discussion had moved off topic but was really good and I thought it deserved its own thread.

[TheBostonBoy]

so is this project officially dead or what is going on?
I really wanted to see this thing built.

[ablarc]

I really wanted to see this thing built.
I'd go so far as to say it was the only really good multi-building proposal in Boston. Naturally, it's the one that died.

Or is it really on life support?

[bosman]

As of now, this project is not officially dead, but for all intents and purposes, it is better to consider it so. Prices have skyrocketed so high that the developers can no longer pay for it, unless a large sum of public money is provided for the project. But this will never happen. Plus, to my knowledge, the neighbors weren't too happy with it. This was probably the best proposal in Boston and it failed. It truly is a shame.

[Roxxma]

Are you speculating or do you have a source? I saw some work going on last night at the former triangular parking lot at the intersection of Columbus Av and Berkeley St.

[sidewalks]

I've heard from several different sources that Winn has between $40 and $50 million of his own money invested in this project. He will not be walking away from this any time soon. I would bet that it will be built, the biggest question is when that will occur.

[TheBostonBoy]

Ya that building is beautiful and i definitely want to see it built.
And good for Winn, this thing should be built and I am glad someone is trying to keep it afloat!
We need to help him! lol

[bosman]

Roxxma, I used that from what I heard awhile ago, and since there really hasn't been much action since then, I only assumed that that source held true (I'll try and find it, but it's a long shot). However, if you saw work going on recently, then they could possibly be the project being resumed.

One thing though, are you sure that it was the Columbus Center? There is a small park being built that is roughly in a triangular shape. I just ask because I made that mistake awhile back.

[Bobby Digital]

we need some inside info thats what we need. some legit reporting needs to be occuring.

but then again, we all know its not happening... to bad,

[JimboJones]

Corner of Berkeley and Columbus is the staging area for the under-construction Clarendon project, I believe.

[stellarfun]

Hard to say whether this means Winn and Cassin are abandoning development in Boston, or a signal they are going to concentrate on Columbus Center.

From June 16 Boston Globe:
JPI Inc., the Texas-based apartments company run locally by former Boston Redevelopment Authority director Thomas N. O'Brien, has agreed to buy the long-dormant East Boston development site Clippership Wharf for $17 million.

JPI, which is rapidly expanding in the Boston area, has signed an agreement with the co-owners of the property, WinnDevelopment of Boston and New York developer Stephen M. Ross.

.......WinnDevelopment chairman Arthur Winn, with local partner Roger M. Cassin, has spent more than a decade planning Columbus Center, an ambitious mixed-use development in the Back Bay and South End. The project has been delayed because of rising construction costs and now has a price tag of at least $650 million.

Eisner said Winn and Ross's decision to sell Clippership was "unrelated" to the Columbus Center situation.

[atlrvr]

It doesn't sound like it means either....sounds like they had a site that they found difficult to develop or a market they weren't convinced of, and found a buyer willing to pay more than the net present value for the land.

[stellarfun]

I don't think the state gives out money to projects that are dead. Maybe the project should be renamed Phoenix at Columbus Center.

State awards $76m in development grants

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | June 29, 2007

The Massachusetts office of Economic Development is giving out $76 million in grants to 21 development projects, including $10 million to Columbus Center, a long-delayed hotel, residential, and retail project that is to straddle the Massachusetts Turnpike between the Back Bay and South End.

Columbus Center, which was disputed by some in the community but has received all of its city and state permits, has been in planning for more than 10 years, and its estimated cost has risen from about $300 million to more than $700 million.

"This state grant, requested by the city for Columbus Center, is a significant step toward reaching our mutual objective of a groundbreaking this summer," said a spokesman for Columbus Center developers Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin.

[stellarfun]

from today's Globe
Democrats oppose Patrick on grant
Columbus Center $10m draws fire

By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 7, 2007

Governor Deval Patrick's decision to steer $10 million in economic development funds to the private Columbus Center complex has angered House Democrats who have repeatedly refused to support the controversial and increasingly expensive development with taxpayer money.

The grant was championed by Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a strong Patrick ally and supporter of the project, who was rebuffed by the Legislature two years ago when she tried to include $4.3 million for the development in an economic stimulus package.

"The developer is asking the taxpayers to subsidize his profit margin," said Representative Martha M. Walz, a Democrat who represents the Back Bay. "That is offensive to me and not an appropriate use of our tax dollars. We don't pay taxes to make developers richer."

Patrick administration officials and Wilkerson defended public investment in a project that developers say will create thousands of jobs and rejoin two of the city's most vibrant neighborhoods, the Back Bay and South End.

"There are some folks who may take issue with this, but the fact is the Columbus Center is probably our best and biggest chance of new job creation for the city of Boston," Wilkerson said.

Legislative opponents also argued that the money, which was awarded last week, was inappropriately drawn from a pool of money that was designed to help create manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts, not to subsidize real estate developers.

"This wasn't supposed to be a grant program where we just blow the money out," said Representative Daniel E. Bosley of North Adams, House chairman of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, who helped craft the bill. "It was supposed to be money we held on to and could use when big players came here and said, 'We're interested [in locating in Massachusetts]. What can you do for us.' It was not to build condos or hotels."

Robert Coughlin, Patrick's undersecretary for business development, said the money will be used to create a deck and tunnel over the Massachusetts Turnpike. "The legislative intent was to make infrastructure improvements that will allow businesses to grow and create jobs," Coughlin said. "We're not investing in hotel rooms."

Wilkerson was unapologetic about doing whatever she can to support the project. "There is a difference of opinion here, she said. But "I'm going to do what every other legislator worth his or her weight will do when they have something they believe in, go through one door and if it's locked go through another door. . . . I've been looking at every pot and every pool of money for this project and any other project that provides the potential for job creation for the residents of my district."

According to administration officials, Mayor Thomas M. Menino also advocated funding for the 1.3 million-square-foot retail and residential development, which will rise above the turnpike between Arlington and Clarendon streets. It will include a 35-story tower on a 1,500-foot-long deck over the Turnpike, which will contain hotel rooms, condos, and retail space.

Bosley said the developers, Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin, had sought money from the Legislature more than once.

In rejecting these requests, several lawmakers, including House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, argued that the developers won approval for the project precisely because they pledged in many community meetings never to seek public financing for the sprawling complex, whose projected cost has mushroomed from $300 million to more than $700 million.

"We have objected," said Representative Byron Rushing of the South End, a member of DiMasi's leadership team. "My constituents did not feel it was a good use of public money. The whole idea was it would make so much money and be such a benefit to the community, we would not need to subsidize it."

An earlier attempt by Wilkerson to get the funds earmarked, or guaranteed as part of the economic stimulus package, was rejected by House leaders. Lawmakers, however, did set aside an unrestricted pool of $100 million to be allocated by the administration. Last week Housing and Economic Development Secretary Daniel O'Connell distributed more than $76 million of the unallotted money to a variety of projects, including Columbus Center.

The developers, according to spokesman Alan Eisner, had requested $20 million under the grant program.

Separately, the state last year had committed $20.6 million in low-interest MassHousing loans.

Eisner defended the state grant award, saying the project will deliver hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in community benefits. "This project is an economic and social home run for the city of Boston," he said. "It's been over 10 years in the making, and it's weathered the storm of huge increases in construction costs, particularly for concrete and steel, which form the basis of the project's foundation over the Turnpike and the MBTA tracks."

He said the projects will provide more than $45 million in public benefits, including 2,600 construction jobs, 360 permanent jobs, three new state parks, and a new ground-water system. Fifteen percent of the units will be considered affordable housing, he said.

"These benefits far outweigh the public subsidies which have been sought and were deemed necessary from the beginning," Eisner said.

Eisner insisted the developers never promised to build the project without any public funds.

Shirley Kressel, a Boston neighborhood activist who has opposed the use of public funds for the project, called the grant award an outrage.

"They rammed this project down the community's throat swearing they would cover all possible costs and they would never get a penny of public subsidy," she said. "As soon as the approval process was over and nobody was looking they launched a treasure hunt in the pockets of the local state and federal government."

[Mike]

Marty Walz and Shirley Kressel are whining, what else is new? I'm glad I voted for Patrick.

[Bobby Digital]

this columbus center is starting to piss me off.

instead of the state giving them more money, why dont they just allow it to be taller which equals more revenue. Throw the state's clout behind the thing see what the nimbys can do then. people want to bitch? the state tells em to go screw or else a new tax will be found for them. Raises the developers bottom line, increases tax revenues, city gets its new jobs, and only a few idiots who forget they're living in a city get hurt until its built and they get used to it and forget all about it.

[palindrome]

time to right to the globe again. I think the problem with height is the FAA, not just Nimbys.

Of course, they wouldn't need a $10m grant, had it not taken 10 FUCKING YEARS planning to approval. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Anyone else find that absolutely ridiculous?

[ablarc]

instead of the state giving them more money, why dont they just allow it to be taller which equals more revenue.
Good idea.

only a few idiots who forget they're living in a city get hurt until it's built and they get used to it and forget all about it.
Yup.

[ablarc]

I think the problem with height is the FAA, not just Nimbys.
Can't be; it's right near Hancock.

[KentXie]

Shirley Kressel, a Boston neighborhood activist who has opposed the use of public funds for the project, called the grant award an outrage.

"They rammed this project down the community's throat swearing they would cover all possible costs and they would never get a penny of public subsidy," she said. "As soon as the approval process was over and nobody was looking they launched a treasure hunt in the pockets of the local state and federal government."
If it didn't take so fucking long to approve it and get it started thanks to people like you and NIMBYs whining about the most outrageous issues, then maybe, just maybe it wouldn't have cost so much to build this and thus would not require taxpayer's money.

[atlantaden]

Shirley Kressel, a Boston neighborhood activist who has opposed the use of public funds for the project, called the grant award an outrage.

Looks like Shirley is the new Boston neighborhood activist/spokesperson that the papers go to for opinions concerning new development in the area. She was quoted the other day (her usual negative harping) in an article about North Point in Cambridge. Funny how an obscure harpy/gadfly has gained traction as a supposedly respected voice in the community.

[type001]

This article made my day on so many levels. And you guys already nailed my thoughts and feelings!

[Ron Newman]

I would like to see this built, but I'm still unconvinced that it is deserving of public (taxpayer) subsidy. 360 jobs is not much bang for the buck, and how will a condo building create even that many?

[TheBostonBoy]

^Janitors, lots of janitors....that's how :D

[BarbaricManchurian]

Shirley Kressel says:

"They rammed this project down the community's throat swearing they would cover all possible costs and they would never get a penny of public subsidy,"


RIDICULOUS. "Rammed down the community's throat." It took 10 FUCKING YEARS to get it approved and she's still complaining after obnoxiously whining about anything new in Boston for ages.

"As soon as the approval process was over and nobody was looking they launched a treasure hunt in the pockets of the local state and federal government."

Uh, yeah. Treasure hunt. It's not a "hunt" as it's well disclosed and where's the federal money that she says their getting?

This project is the best proposal in Boston in decades, connecting 2 neighborhoods and building another high-rise. And $10 million dollars, if it jump-starts this project, is well spent if it actually starts it. If Winn stalls some more and begs for more money, I say stop giving him more money because he had his chance.

(begin rant)But these NIMBYs, they FUCKING PISS ME OFF. All they do is obstruct, delay, block buildings for idiotic reasons. I can't find one real reason to stop Columbus Center. But obviously this bitch Kressel wants the Turnpike ditch rather than a beautiful skyscraper. THIS FUCKING BITCH DELAYED THE PROJECT FOR 10 YEARS AND NOW SHE'S STILL WHINING. Well it's what you fucking expect in Boston, the NIMBY capital of the world.(end rant)

And plus, thanks for this forum. It helps me check on the latest in Boston construction. I registered after reading about this forum in the Apple store Boston globe magazine article. I'm a thirteen year old Asian from Westford, if you want to know.

[TheBostonBoy]

I think you are the new youngest person in the thread now, congrats!
And good rant, couldn't have said it better myself

[BarbaricManchurian]

ADRIAN WALKER
Snow job creation

By Adrian Walker, Globe Columnist | July 10, 2007

As a neighborhood-eating monstrosity in the making, the Columbus Center project in the South End has never lacked opponents.

Though the condo/retail/hotel project has been in the works for at least a decade, it stirred its largest controversy in just the last few days. As the Globe's Andrea Estes reported Saturday, the state has steered $10 million in taxpayer money to the project in the name of job creation.

Versions of this deal were rejected by the Legislature at least twice in recent years, but developer Arthur Winn's persistent ally, Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Roxbury, found a way to get it done that didn't require a vote. A $100 million piggybank created last year for infrastructure improvements statewide was tapped.

The state's economic development officials were anxious yesterday to point out that none of the money in the grant goes to Winn and his partner Roger Cassin. Technically, they are correct. The project requires that a 1,500- foot- long deck be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike. Instead of the developers building it themselves, as they promised for years to do, you and I are building it. The developers don't get a $10 million check, but they just saved that amount on their $700 million project.

Representative Martha Walz of the Back Bay has lived with the Columbus Center controversy for years, first as a neighborhood activist and now as an elected official. She strongly opposes the subsidy.

Walz said she personally attended meetings in which the developers pledged not to seek public money. She was not consulted on the funding; neither, incredibly, was Speaker Salvatore F . DiMasi, even though the project is partly in his district. DiMasi complained to Governor Deval Patrick about the deal early yesterday.

Walz pointed out that the developers long ago struck a deal with the Turnpike Authority to pay reduced rent on the parcels they are building on, because the expense of the deck was factored in. "We've already paid for this deck three times over," she told me yesterday.

Wilkerson is a longtime ally of Winn, a campaign contributor. She has supported this project since her first term and passionately defended it yesterday. Wilkerson's case, summarized: We do worse things in the Legislature all the time.

When that wasn't going over, she told me that the Patrick administration's job creation was too focused on upscale fields such as biotech that don't employ her constituents. She even suggested that this deal might be a blueprint for future development over the Turnpike.

"We passed a bill that gave almost $150 million to harbor and waterfront development, because there was a determination that developers needed it to make their deals work," Wilkerson said. She added that lawmakers signed off on $9 million for a Best Western Hotel in Roxbury's Crosstown Center project a few years ago, when the developers hadn't even asked for it.

"We use public money for leverage," she explained, and said the legislators won a pledge for a grand total of six jobs.

Wilkerson's comments illustrate just how the administration got rolled on Columbus Center. First, she played the class-warfare card. Then, she argued that her constituents are shut out of the jobs the administration is trying to create.

It isn't clear whether Patrick had any direct involvement in this mess, but this administration can't stand to have anyone say it isn't doing enough for working-class people or African-Americans. Some critics, including Wilkerson, have privately been saying just that for months. To make her go away, she and Winn get a victory, and the state puts out a press release touting its job creation.

It is outrageous that Wilkerson thinks terrible decisions justify more terrible decisions, but that's what 14 years of cutting deals at the State House can do to your judgment. Patrick has no such excuse. He once pledged to take on the culture of Beacon Hill. That promise feels as if it were made a very long time ago.

Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com.
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

This isn't a useless grant though, like the other ones that only made 6 jobs. This will make at least hundreds of jobs, and the "Beacon Hill culture" is giving to favored developers only, and still giving them money even after they don't build anything. They have economic development grants in every state, this isn't anything different or "Beacon Hill culture".

[Bobby Digital]

The other day i was hearing a little bit about the union culture, and how they go about business. Learning about it in school and learning about the actual goings on can be very different.

If the developers are using union labor, these labor unions will sometimes subsidize the project by granting the developers a loan at very low rates, for the sole purpose of giving union laborers work. Point being, why couldnt this happen here? Both parties would benefit, and it would save taxpayers' money. Of course free taxpayer money is always better for the developer. Aside from the obvious permanent janitor jobs spoken of earlier, for 3 years or however long it takes to build it, hundreds more jobs are created on a semi-permanent basis during construction.

I don't know if this is a union job or not, but the legislature could be feeling pressure from union lobbyists as well to get this project off the ground. Unions give politicians money, and there's always the good ol' boy system still in existence. I dont think that culture is ever going away, even though union membership has been declining for decades.

[Equilibria]

I'm wondering what the issue is exactly here. Are opponents of this project angry because of the subsidy or because of the development?

If it's the subsidy, here's a thought. The money from the state is going to cover up the Turnpike, which right now is an ugly hole in the ground. Previously, they seem to have given money in rent discounts in return for the pre-development promise that the Pike would ultimately be covered.

Besides the obvious: the only reason the deck has been delayed this long and thus paid for "several times over" is because of people like this columnist whining incessantly, all projects, especially public ones, chew considerable amounts of money before the first spade is turned. Environmental Impact Statements, Assessments, Renderings (which we so love), legal fees, architect's fees, and so on eat up millions of dollars, especially on something as impressive as covering a highway.

If we consider the rent discounts to be equivalent to these advance fees, and we consider the state to be funding what is essentially a highway project, $10 million is actually quite reasonable, especially considering what it cost to hide the other highway across town.

If this is a neighborhood issue, then I don't know the neighborhood enough to make a judgment, but it just doesn't seem to me like the wrong place for this thing. It's in line with the Pru height-wise, not to mention 360 down the street, and it will be a boon to future development in the area. This is one of those rare projects that seems to make a winner of everyone.

Since it's gotten delayed so long, can someone more informed enlighten me on any reasonable issues people have with this thing?

[czsz]

boon to future development in the area

This is definitely a negative for adversaries of this project.

[Ron Newman]

Now that you mention it ... what future development? With some very rare exceptions, this area is built out. Once you cover the Turnpike and fill in a couple empty spaces at the Prudential Center, there's no place to build a new building unless you take an old one down first.

[atlrvr]

The city just received RFPs from consultants to do a "Stuart Street area plan" that will be looking at the area north of the turnpike and adjacent to Columbus Center. The goal will be to see what development and redevelopment opportunities exist, and to set guidelines as to what should occur in the future.

I agree that this project is terrific. Capping the freeway is a huge asset that should make everyone's quality of life better. Less cold wind in the winter, less shifting in and out of light for Pike drivers which is safer, less noisy interstate traffic, and an activated streetscape instead of highway overpasses.

I think the new subsidy is a bit dubious, but I do agree that this is the states own creation (lengthy and exhaustive reviews) and for routing an interstate through the heart of the city in the first place.

[bosma]

ADRIAN WALKER
Snow job creation

By Adrian Walker, Globe Columnist | July 10, 2007

As a neighborhood-eating monstrosity in the making, the Columbus Center project in the South End has never lacked opponents.



"A neighborhood -eating monstrosity in the making"

This project the the total opposite, its actually neighborhood creating.

[justin]

The state has created the gash that is the turnpike, and it keeps subsidizing its users. I think it makes perfect sense for the state to mitigate the impact of its freeway on the city by covering it up. If that helps Columbus Center, all the better, but I don't see this as being much different from the government repaving the roads or planting trees. In fact, it's much more natural for the government to be doing this than to mooch off private developers.

justin

[ablarc]

Now that you mention it ... what future development? With some very rare exceptions, this area is built out. Once you cover the Turnpike and fill in a couple empty spaces at the Prudential Center, there's no place to build a new building unless you take an old one down first.
Cover the next stretch of turnpike and build another Columbus Center. There's plenty more.

[palindrome]

I just can't believe people in this city sometimes. Boston just keeps shooting itself in the foot. Lack of housing and Nimbys having to much power is what will ultimatly destroy this city. After college I am getting the hell out of here.

[Beton Brut]

As I said in the Seaport thread a while back, it's a lot easier to see when you take your head out of your ass.

[BostonObserver]

The state has created the gash that is the turnpike, and it keeps subsidizing its users. I think it makes perfect sense for the state to mitigate the impact of its freeway on the city by covering it up. If that helps Columbus Center, all the better, but I don't see this as being much different from the government repaving the roads or planting trees. In fact, it's much more natural for the government to be doing this than to mooch off private developers.

justin

That 'gash' was there long before there was a Back Bay. The city was built up around the railroad tracks. Latter the turnpike was added.

[Ron Newman]

However, the Turnpike widened the 'gash'.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I just can't believe people in this city sometimes. Boston just keeps shooting itself in the foot. Lack of housing and Nimbys having to much power is what will ultimatly destroy this city. After college I am getting the hell out of here.

Me, bowesst, the list keeps rising. This is exactly Boston's problem.

[kz1000ps]

^ You can count me in on that list too. I haven't found an apartment yet, but I'm hoping to move to NYC this September.

[TheBostonBoy]

In this months issue of Boston Globe Magazine, it has section of articles about the upcoming construction in Boston and the big building boom. Anyone read it yet? It is sick...
But anyways there is a part about Columbus Center, and it says groundbreaking is set for late this summer. Is this true cause I haven't seen any other reports of it starting construction that soon except in that article...

[Mike]

^ It was mentioned in a Globe article a couple weeks ago:

State awards $76m in development grants

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | June 29, 2007

"This state grant, requested by the city for Columbus Center, is a significant step toward reaching our mutual objective of a groundbreaking this summer," said a spokesman for Columbus Center developers Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin.

[Bobby Digital]

Now that you mention it ... what future development? With some very rare exceptions, this area is built out. Once you cover the Turnpike and fill in a couple empty spaces at the Prudential Center, there's no place to build a new building unless you take an old one down first.
Cover the next stretch of turnpike and build another Columbus Center. There's plenty more.

Good call bra... your on a roll.

[BarbaricManchurian]

I just can't believe people in this city sometimes. Boston just keeps shooting itself in the foot. Lack of housing and Nimbys having to much power is what will ultimatly destroy this city. After college I am getting the hell out of here.

Me too. I can't believe how much power NIMBYs have in Boston. No other city in America comes close. All other cities in America try to encourage development, while in Boston many people try to discourage it, much more per capita than any other city I know of. Also the rediculously long permitting process discourages a lot of projects. But political reform will never come, the city is too set in its ways. Just 11 years ago they didn't let stores open on Sunday. This place may be high-tech, but it's so backwards in terms of laws.

[nico]

I realize that not letting stores open on Sundays can perhaps seem backwards to people not accustomed to it, but it can benefit small business owners, many of whom really need that one day off a week without worrying about their competition.

[Ron Newman]

I recall Sunday store openings starting a lot earlier than that -- way back to the 1980s or even late 70s, I believe. There were never special rules for Boston; the law was and is statewide.

Before the 1970s it was common for stores to be closed on Sunday in most parts of the US, not just Massachusetts.

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I realize that not letting stores open on Sundays can perhaps seem backwards to people not accustomed to it, but it can benefit small business owners, many of whom really need that one day off a week without worrying about their competition.

Yeah, my grandparents owned a liquor store and Beverly and got completely screwed when the law changed - they could never leave their store for even a day. The store was pretty big, but they rarely hired any help (other than me on my occassional visits). They retired a few years later, but I doubt everyone was that lucky...

Just think, would you trust your store, with no inventory or shrink tracking, and mostly cash transactions, to a part time employee? You could never go on vacation or have a day off...

That said, I'm glad they passed the law because there have been many a time when I've needed to buy on Sundays

[stellarfun]

from the July 11 South End News
Issue Date: 7/12/2007, Posted On: 7/11/2007

Columbus Center seeks more public funding
by Linda Rodriguez

Developers of the Columbus Center project have applied for up to $35 million in a tax-exempt bond loan from Boston Industrial Development Financing Authority (BIDFA), an agency of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA). A public hearing on the request was held July 11 in the lobby area of BIDFA’s Drydock Avenue office on Wednesday morning.

The request comes on the heels of the controversy kicked up by Gov. Deval Patrick’s decision to award the project developers a $10 million grant. The grant was announced June 28 and was one of 21, totaling $76 million. House Speaker Sal DiMasi and state Rep. Byron Rushing, who both represent the South End, oppose the grant because they said developers promised they would construct the project with private funds. State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who represents the South End, championed the grant.

Conducted by Frank Tocci, deputy director for financial services for the BRA, the meeting lasted less than an hour and was attended by only two members of the public, Irena Burns of Arlington Street and Ned Flaherty of the South End, who has been a vocal critic of the project. It addressed an application by Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin, the developers of the air-rights project, for the tax-exempt bonds to go toward building a hotel and restaurant. The Columbus Center, which has been in development for more than a decade, would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike, parcels 16, 17, 18, and 19, between Clarendon and Tremont streets; the bonds would only be applicable to building the hotel on Parcel 16.

The project is currently expected to cost more than $700 million, according to Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, nearly double the initial cost estimates. The $35 million bond would offset rising construction costs, which Eisner said is behind the Columbus Center’s inflating price tag. However, the savings to the developer as a result of the bond being tax exempt would only be around $5 to $7 million, he said.

Much of the controversy around the Columbus Center and the recent $10 million grant awarded by the state to offset the cost of building a $140 million deck over the Turnpike has had to do with the recollection of residents, activists and politicians that the developers initially claimed that they would build the project without public funds. But Eisner said that the developers never promised to build the project without public assistance. “What they said was that, this was way back when the price of the project was much, much lower, that they didn’t anticipate seeking any funds at that time, but that they did not rule it out for the future,” Eisner said.

Eisner also said that the developers have received a $2 million community development action grant from the state department of Housing and Community Development, a $20 million MassHousing loan, and the $10 million grant from the state — in all, “a very small percentage of a $700 million-plus project.”

The Columbus Center project is eligible for the tax-exempt bonds because of a recent Empowerment Zone designation covering the air rights parcels through the Massachusetts Turnpike. The designation is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and was created to stimulate business growth and economy in “distressed communities,” according to HUD’s Web site, by making low-interest loans and tax credits available to businesses within the zones in return for job creation and growth.

The Empowerment Zone in Boston was expanded to include air rights parcels over the Turnpike from Brookline to the Southeast Expressway — an expanse covering already-developed parcels like the Prudential Center. In addition to being eligible for the low-interest bond, the Columbus Center could also receive tax credits for employees on the company payroll living within the Empowerment Zone and reduced capital gains taxes.

According to Tocci, the hotel and restaurant will create 234 jobs for the community, after the project is built.

Around $130 million was set aside in tax-exempt bonds for Boston-area Empowerment Zone initiatives; the funds must be designated for developers by Dec. 31, 2009, when the $130 million allocation expires. Other projects that have benefited from the Empowerment Zone designation and the tax-exempt bonds include the Crosstown Center in Roxbury and the Fenway Community Health Center. Should the Columbus Center loan be approved, $32 million will remain in the Empowerment Zone allocation.

The bond has already been approved by Boston Connects, Inc., the city nonprofit charged with locally administering the Empowerment Zones. Wednesday’s hearing was mandated by the federal government as part of the bond approval process and represented the public’s opportunity to comment directly to BIDFA about the loan.

The members of the community who attended the meeting raised a few questions about the loan and if BIDFA was aware of the whole financial picture surrounding the Columbus Center’s other applications for public funds or loans. Tocci was unable to answer that question at the time. Most of the other questions raised at the hearing came from members of the media, who outnumbered the area residents.

Following this hearing, the bond will now have to go before the City Council for a hearing before returning to BIDFA for approval, and then to the state’s Development Finance Agency for ultimate approval. The whole process should take 60 to 90 days, said Tocci, and no date has been set for a City Council hearing. Tocci also said that though no interest rate has been established for the bond, it would likely be a half to one percent lower than market rate.

Though there is no timeline yet for the project, Eisner said that, should all the financing come through, the developers hope to begin construction by the end of the summer. Eisner said that as of this point, the developers have already contributed more than $40 million of their own funds to the project and that no investors have pulled funding from the project.

“The developers is working diligently with the city and state and their own investors to try to put a package together that will allow it to begin by the end of the summer,” said Eisner.

from today's Boston Herald

Project could land millions in low-cost financing
By Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald Business Reporter
Thursday, July 12, 2007 - Updated: 12:30 AM EST

Hub developer Arthur Winn and his investors, as they look to get the $700 million Columbus Center project into construction, are applying for tens of millions in low-cost government financing.

Winn’s development team is seeking $32 million in tax-exempt bonds from the Boston Industrial Finance Authority. The project qualifies, city officials contend, because it falls inside an “empowerment zone,” created under a federal program designed to spur economic development.

The proposed bond financing comes atop a $10 million infrastructure grant the Patrick administration is considering giving to the project.

But some say the use of the low-cost government financing is wrong for the Pike air-rights project, which will straddle Boston’s wealthy Back Bay and South End neighborhoods and feature a deluxe condo/hotel tower.

“This is not a poor area. This is not a job-creating economic development project,”argued Shirley Kressel, head of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods.

But project boosters contend Columbus Center, which will create hundreds of permanent hotel and other jobs, is deserving of government assistance.

“These low-interest loans will be used to support job training and job creation associated primarily with the hotel portion of the project,” said Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developer.


Owners to be liable for new Pike tunnel
By Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald Business Reporter
Thursday, July 12, 2007 - Updated: 12:30 AM EST

Columbus Center businesses and condo buyers are in for an unpleasant surprise.

After the $700 million-plus air-rights project over the Turnpike is complete, they will be on the hook for maintaining and inspecting key parts of the lengthy new tunnel created underneath, according to a copy of the lease agreement between Columbus Center’s developers and the Turnpike.

The proposed 1.3 million-square-foot development, featuring a deluxe condo and hotel tower, is designed to cover what is now an ugly highway canyon near the Hancock Tower. In doing so, it would create a roughly quarter-mile tunnel underneath its massive highway deck.

And should there be another fatal mishap along the lines of last year’s Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse, it will be Columbus Center’s residents and tenants who will be on the hook, records show.

This offloading of liability, critics argue, is the wrong direction for the Turnpike amid ongoing questions about the highway authority’s oversight role in last year’s fatal Big Dig tunnel roof collapse.

“My first reaction is I couldn’t possibly be reading this lease correctly,” said Ned Flaherty, a neighborhood activist and Columbus Center opponent who discovered the inspection and liability shift in the project’s lease agreement.

In particular, Columbus Center’s owners and tenants will be responsible for hiring a consultant to inspect and maintain the fireproofing in the tunnel under the project, as well as key supports, said Turnpike spokesman Jon Carlisle.

Meanwhile, Turnpike officials will directly inspect key life safety systems, such as ventilation, he added.

Carlisle said the Turnpike authority learned valuable lessons from last year’s tragedy.

“I think the lessons of July 10, 2006 are still very strong with us, not just for existing tunnels, but tunnels that may be created in the future,” he said.

[Bos77]

“The developers is working diligently with the city and state and their own investors to try to put a package together that will allow it to begin by the end of the summer,” said Eisner.

Dios mios this project gives me heartburn...

Every time I truly give up hope on it and write of off as a lost cause, something happens to give me hope, which then leads to more pain and suffering. :roll:

[JimboJones]

You guys give NIMBYism too much credit in this specific case.

The handouts from the government is what is bothering some people. Count me in on that. I realize that many projects get money from the state and federal governments - it's just that we don't hear a lot about these cases, or we just don't care.

This project has been over-analyzed to death, we all know that. It would be great if they would just start the damn project.

I have to say, though, that the density of the project is a major concern. Yes, it's on the edge of a commercial area, in the shadow of the Hancock tower, as it were, but it also abuts a real neighborhood. Certainly, neighbors have the right (and the responsibility, mind you) to express their opinions and to try to mitigate any negatives.

Adding hundreds of car trips to the area would have a detrimental effect on abutters. That's why you're seeing everyone try to sell their condos in the Pope Building and at 75 Clarendon Street. Who wants to deal with cabs blaring their horns and creating traffic jams, all day & night.

You can say, "These people live in the city, they should get used to it, or move!" Okay, they're moving.

But, you're talking about creating land and buildings where none exist, today - and where people bought homes and invested their money on the expectation that things would stay the same, at least for the foreseeable future. Moving in across from a loud eight lane highway (the Pike) probably seemed questionable, at the time, but these people did it, anyway.

They didn't expect a 400-foot hotel and hundreds of condos to sprout up across the street (they probably didn't even think it was humanly possible).

So, give them a break.

As someone who lives on Tremont St, I'm used to traffic, noise, and obstructed views (the lovely Atelier 505 is across the street).

It won't matter to me at all what is built at Columbus Center. I'd like it to be developed.

I don't like the idea of government spending money on any private development, it's just my point of view. Yes, I know it happens all the time. Yes, it annoys me every time it does.

I have problems with the size of the project, but will hold my tongue, in the interest of common good.

[vanshnookenraggen]

What if Boston said they would only pay for the cost of decking over the highway? That would help the project but it would also be beneficial to the community. Would you object to that kind of subsidy?

[atlrvr]

^ Why would anyone be selling their units now at adjacent properties? That logic doesn't make sense....this things still has a good chance of not happening, and even if it does, there won't be the impacts of increased traffic until 2010.

Also, you mention loud cabs.....I would argue that covering the interstate that has many loud police, fire trucks and ambulances all day and night will make it much queiter......stand at the corner of Clarendon and Columbus today.....its just loud non-stop.

[johnmcboston]

I just can't believe people in this city sometimes. Boston just keeps shooting itself in the foot. Lack of housing and Nimbys having to much power is what will ultimately destroy this city. After college I am getting the hell out of here.

That's over-simplistic though. You talk lack of housing, but you won't be able to afford anything in those buildings. And having seen dozens of housing buildings go up, it's certainly not freeing up anything affordable to the middle class.

Lots of the NIMBY arguments go beyond the actual building. I agree something should be put there. I also sat on two years of public meetings for a civic vision for the whole turnpike, which promptly got thrown into the trash once the first developer showed up.

They're also building a skyscraper in a area with electrical problems and sewage problems, along roads that are often at 110% capacity as it is - and all the studies and plans associated with the building ignore those facts.

And, like many developers, this team has lied through its teeth at every turn, and done all it can to information hide and to deceive the public. I mean let's face reality here - they're doing this for money, not for any grand city benefit. So you really expect me to believe that this 700 million dollar project is not happening because they needed 10 million form the state? You're smoking something if you believe that.

Most of the 'complaining' you read out there is really against the developers, and our lack of trust. Yes, there are some people who want nothing there, but most people agree the area is better served with buildings on all the parcels. But for the most part we're just looking for a little honesty and some real facts and figures. "Trust me" doesn't mean much on a project that has been dragging for 10 years.

[Ron Newman]

I also question what is not going to be subsidized elsewhere with the money going to this project. If you were to choose a Massachusetts neighborhood most in need of redevelopment, the Back Bay and South End would be nowhere on the list. Wouldn't the tax money be better spent around Fields Corner or Ruggles, or in Chelsea or Holyoke?

[statler]

That's over-simplistic though. You talk lack of housing, but you won't be able to afford anything in those buildings. And having seen dozens of housing buildings go up, it's certainly not freeing up anything affordable to the middle class.
Why not?
Though this new supply may create some new demand, most of it will just relieve pent up demand, thus dropping prices across the board.

And I think this is the problem most people have with these types of developments. It might lower the demand for (and thus, price of) their house if they choose to sell. It is a rational but self-serving fear.
Of course, if people bought their house as a place to live rather than just as an investment, we might see a lot less of this. But that is asking too much in today's mobile society.

[JimboJones]

Yes, putting the state's money toward "infrastructure" would make me happy, even though it ends up benefiting the developer.

The state did this with Route 1 in Foxboro, I believe. I was against that, since the road improvements only helped the Patriots, and no one else. I was annoyed, but, whatever.

Owners would sell now, because they have no idea what will happen. Yes, precisely for that reason. The alternative is to wait until it's done, three or four years from now. The owners selling now must assess what their plans are for the next half-decade. Those who don't want the uncertainty will move now, versus later.

Plus, you're more likely to get a buyer now, before construction begins, than during construction.

The plans for construction should be disclosed to any buyers, of course, but they may not realize what they're in for. As you say, this project may never get built. To a certain number of buyers, that's all they need to know.

Suppose it IS built and ends up being a monstrosity causing huge traffic jams, congestion, noise, etc. Owners don't want to take that chance.

If I was an owner, I'd get out now.

[InTheHood]

I'm of mixed minds on the public subsidy, but it seems to me that the neighbors have not yet confronted the elephant in the room, which is that decking a heavily used interstate costs a massive amount of money.

I agree with johnmcboston that the $10 million certainly isn't going to make or break this project.

I disagree with johnmcboston's view that it was a bad thing that the Civic Vision for the whole turnpike was in large measure scrapped or ignored. The problem with the Civic Vision, and the problem with a lot of the commentary by the neighbors in the dozens of meetings on CC that I attended, is that the Civic Vision pretty much ignored economic reality and risk. Why would a developer take on all the added cost and headache associated with an air rights project when a similar solid ground opportunity might exist a block away? Indeed, the Clarendon project, proposed years after Columbus Center, is now underway while CC sits in limbo. That's because the economics of Clarendon don't require building an expensive deck.

I hope that most of us on this Board can agree that decking/covering the Pike end to end would be a good thing, something in the public interest. It connects neighborhoods. It makes a noisy trench quieter. It adds tremendously to walkable civic space.

Assuming we agree on that, we need to then make a choice between Option 1) A significant public subsidy to offset the cost of the deck, the over-highway construction, and subsequent tunnel maintenance or Option 2) Sweeteners that would make these projects more profitable than its landside competitors. Those sweeteners probably need to include a combination of a zero-cost lease from the Pike and permission to build higher than surrounding zoning (as envisioned by CC, but perhaps even higher) at a minimum. And that still might not be enough to avoid some subsidy of infrastructure as in Option 1. There is no such thing as an Option 3 where this magically gets built with the same economics as other buildings. There is an option, of course, where nothing gets built, but opponents ought to be honest if that's what they really favor, instead of invoking a fantasy.

I have ZERO sympathy for residents of the Pope building or 75 Clarendon. The public interest of the rest of the city should not be held hostage because someone is worried about losing his penthouse view. And (not to pick on johnmcboston) I also don't understand why anyone cares that the condos are going to be high priced luxury units. By definition, any new high-rise residential building in the middle of a city is going to be high priced luxury units unless they are subsidized. Assuming otherwise is like wondering why Ford can't sell you a new Mustang for $5000. If that's your budget, you buy something used. The irony is, by making it difficult to build high-end luxury condo towers, you push that demand elsewhere, and so instead, rich people do gut rehabs of formerly affordable townhouses, as they have across all of the South End.

If I were renting in the South End, I'd be very much in favor of all of these developments. The more that get built, the less likely that my place will be gutted and taken condo.

[Ron Newman]

I care about the 'luxury units' only because they again call into question the project's suitability for public subsidy. Should economic development funds be spent in Boston's richest neighborhoods, or (say) to attract a factory to Lawrence?

[Beton Brut]

I care about the 'luxury units' only because they again call into question the project's suitability for public subsidy. Should economic development funds be spent in Boston's richest neighborhoods, or (say) to attract a factory to Lawrence?

An interesting point, Ron, but as many have observed, the public process surrounding the approval of this project contributed significantly to its current financial struggle to get off the ground. To see a different result of a public process (and the impact on less affluent communities than the South End), you need only consider the kangaroo courts that lead to the approvals of the Runway 14/32 and the Center-Field Taxiway at Logan.

Alternately, do you think the good people of the South End would be more receptive to 5-stories of low-income housing on this site? With all due respect, Shirley Kressel and her cabal wouldn't know malignant land use if it marched up and kicked them in the jimmy.

[InTheHood]

The subsidy isn't for the luxury condos, it's for the deck. If you went back to Winn/Cassin and told them, "we won't give you one penny that goes into the tower, but we'll pick up all the costs associated with the deck" they'd sign on in a heartbeat and CC would already be built. Decking costs much, much more than the piddly $10 million they are getting from the State.

A fair question is, would you rather subsidize the deck (which does provide public benefit, connecting the neighborhoods, creating some parkland, quieting and beautifying the area) or (to use Ron's example) instead use the same dollars for economic development or public housing in Lawrence. It's reasonable to favor the latter, but this literally has nothing to do with the fact that the tower contains luxury units. Indeed, you can rest assured that any benefit at all that accrues to those condos from the deck will be fully priced into the units (and hotel rooms) from the start!

There WILL be some "windfall" benefit that accrues specifically to owners and residents of buildings that are already in place - the row houses of Cortes Street, for example, which currently face the Pike. And those of us who live a few blocks away and cross the Pike bridges every day. Some of us are wealthy, some are not. It's a fair point that the entire neighborhood is in much better shape and better off than Lawrence. But let's be clear about who we are subsidizing. You can rest assured that the subsidy does NOT go to the folks who buy the expensive condos after the thing is built. This won't make them any richer. (And not building it won't make them any poorer, either).

[atlantaden]

^^^^^^^^

Not to mention property taxes to the city. I wonder how long it would take to recoup the 10 million just from the taxes paid alone.

[JimboJones]

In this months issue of Boston Globe Magazine, it has section of articles about the upcoming construction in Boston and the big building boom. Anyone read it yet? It is sick...

Clarification, it's "Boston Magazine" - not affiliated with the Boston Globe.

July issue, on newsstands now, the Corddry brothers on the cover.

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I mean let's face reality here - they're doing this for money, not for any grand city benefit. So you really expect me to believe that this 700 million dollar project is not happening because they needed 10 million form the state? You're smoking something if you believe that.

I really don't understand why people think it's bad or dishonest or evil to make money. I just don't get it.

John, have you ever gone to a restaurant or to a store or purchased services? Do you think, when you order your veal parmesan, "all this restaurant is out to do is make money. it's not to promote healthy eating habits, or to feed people."? No, you think, "mmm veal parmesan, this sure is filling". clearly developers are out to make money, but in a capitalistic society it is the desire to make money that drives value-creation within an economy. and while this specific value-creation may have a negative effect on you, or you may percieve that it will (i dont think it will), the net positive effect to the economy and society as a whole outweighs that (percieved) negative quite severely.

When people systematically prevent businesspeople from creating value that would benefit society as a whole by relieving demand and increasing supply, therefore lowering prices in the market and making them more affordable for all, based solely on the negative effects it would have on them personally, it has devastating effects on society - hence boston's housing costs.

[castevens]

Read up on the history of the purple pill. You'll find that people can do things that are 100% in the bounds of legality with the intent to make money, and it is very, very evil. It depends on the context of how the person is making the money. Sure, the restaurant may not be evil just because it wants to turn a profit. AstraZeneca on the other hand....

[DudeUrSistersHot]

i dont see the problem with making a drug that helps with acid reflux...

though we are getting off topic

[stellarfun]

new graphic from today's Globe, accompanying an article about Columbus Center getting more state and local financing.
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2007/07/13/1184313533_7464.gif

[KentXie]

$10m more sought for Columbus Center
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | July 13, 2007

The developers of the Columbus Center project in Boston, already under fire for a $10 million state grant to help with site preparation, are pushing for another $10 million from the Patrick administration.

And, despite criticism from some Democrats in the Massachusetts House , city and state officials appear supportive of the additional infusion of public funds.

Developers Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin originally requested $20 million in state aid for the project to help build the concrete platform over the Massachusetts Turnpike on which parts of the complex would sit. Last month the Patrick administration awarded the developers $10 million. At the time, the administration did not address the request for the other $10 million.

The Legislature has repeatedly declined to provide state development funds for Columbus Center; the funds awarded to the developers last month did not require legislative approval.

Legislative opponents renewed their attacks on the use of public funds for private development yesterday. "This is not an appropriate use of the job creation funds that the Legislature set aside in the economic stimulus package," Representative Martha M. Walz, a Back Bay Democrat who criticized the award of the first $10 million, said yesterday.

Winn and Cassin have also asked a city development agency to issue $32.5 million in tax-free Empowerment Zone bonds, which they would repay.

Boston officials, frustrated at watching Columbus Center sit on the drawing board for four years after it received city approval, this week said the project deserves the additional money. In addition, the Menino administration supports the use of the Empowerment Zone bonds for Columbus Center.

"It's our sense that these public monies are the only way this project is going to get off the ground," said Harry Collings, executive secretary of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. "We feel the benefits far outweigh the public money's participation."

Winn and Cassin calculate that they will contribute a total of about $53 million in public benefits and construction mitigation measures, including three parks and future park maintenance, 45 affordable housing units on site, 20 or so affordable units off site, recharging of groundwater wells in the area, and subsidies to future occupants including a day-care center and grocery store. The project itself will generate 2,600 construction jobs and 380 permanent ones.

The developers estimate the project will have received a total of $59.6 million from a variety of public financing sources, including loans, grants, and the value of the city bonds -- not counting the additional request of $10 million from the state.

A representative of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, which would have to approve the remaining $10 million request, declined to say yesterday whether the Patrick administration would sign off on the funds, but made clear it strongly supports the Columbus Center project.

"Our goal is to get the shovel in the ground and the project moving forward," said Kofi Jones, a spokeswoman for the agency. A spokesman for Winn and Cassin said yesterday that, after a decade of planning, delays, and long searches for sufficient private and public financing to cover the massive residential, hotel, retail, and open-space development's cost, the additional funds should be enough to get the project started.

The developers also said the total cost is now estimated at $800 million -- up from an estimated $300 million six years ago.

Critics of the project again insisted that the developers had pledged in some of the 100-plus public hearings over the years not to seek public funding.

"Public subsidies paying for public benefits through a private entity that makes a profit doesn't make a lot of sense to me," David S. Mundel, a South End resident and opponent of Columbus Center, said yesterday. "Do we really want the project, given what they expect us to pay for it, or could we do better?"

Winn and Cassin have repeatedly denied they made any pledge to forgo public funds. In fact, they have argued that public financing was always contemplated on projects built on air rights of the turnpike corridor.

They cited "A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston," a 2000 document published by the Boston Redevelopment Authority that set guidelines for design and development of projects over the turnpike in the city.

The concrete platform that would be funded in part by the state assistance is crucial to making those turnpike air rights available for the Columbus Center development.

"Air rights can help achieve longstanding urban design and public realm goals," the document states. "Meeting these goals will require an aggressive effort to obtain public and private funds."

Collings, who followed the permitting and review process closely, said this week he had reviewed the history and spoken with others who attended the meetings.

"There's no recollection a guarantee was made," he said. "There may have been a mention that 'at this time it isn't anticipated' there would be public funding. But there was never any anticipation that costs would spiral the way they have since."

When Winn and Cassin were designated as the developers of the air-rights space by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority in 1997, Columbus Center's cost was pegged at about $300 million. But the costs of steel and other construction materials have escalated by up to 20 percent a year.

"Public subsidies paying for public benefits through a private entity that makes a profit doesn't make a lot of sense to me," David S. Mundel, a South End resident and opponent of Columbus Center, said yesterday. "Do we really want the project, given what they expect us to pay for it, or could we do better?"
They weren't expecting us to pay for years back and yet he whined back then and trust me, if they can do any better, the NIMBYs would have fought it to death anyways. They need to just shut up and get it done.

[castevens]

i dont see the problem with making a drug that helps with acid reflux...

though we are getting off topic

Thus me telling you to read up on the history of it. (/end off topic)

[JimboJones]

Yes, I was surprised to see that the train tracks remain exposed between Berkeley and Arlington.

[czsz]

"Public subsidies paying for public benefits through a private entity that makes a profit doesn't make a lot of sense to me," David S. Mundel, a South End resident and opponent of Columbus Center, said yesterday. "Do we really want the project, given what they expect us to pay for it, or could we do better?"

Who's going to do better? What developer is going to want to step up to the plate after watching this saga?

Here's a comparison that should be drawn: by providing the money to deck the highway, the city is essentially providing buildable land. It's created new land before, and turned over such land to developers to profit from housing construction - when the South End and Back Bay were first built.

[Ron Newman]

Yes, I was surprised to see that the train tracks remain exposed between Berkeley and Arlington.

Perhaps for ventilation reasons? I often hear complaints about diesel smoke in Back Bay station.

[stellarfun]

Rendering of a pathway park for Columbus Center. From:
http://www.pressleyinc.com/portfolio/columbusctr_green.html

http://www.pressleyinc.com/portfolio/images/columbusctr/columbusctr_seminal.jpg

[shiz02130]

From Today's Globe:

Neighborly view of Columbus Center
July 14, 2007

IN HIS July 10 column ("Snow job creation," City & Region), Adrian Walker writes that Columbus Center "has never lacked opponents," and he implies that there is widespread and unified opposition to the South End project. This is not the case. The Bay Village Neighborhood Association, among many other groups, continues to strongly support this project.

Further, in criticizing those who support limited public funding for elements of this project, such as Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Roxbury, he seeks to portray them as captives of the developers, an entirely unfounded charge.

For those who live near the Massachusetts Turnpike, providing funds to allow this project to move forward means repairing the blight caused by the state's construction of the turnpike decades ago. The project would rejoin three residential neighborhoods (Bay Village, the South End, and Back Bay) that were artificially separated by the turnpike. Public benefits aren't measured by job creation alone, and the small amount of money granted Columbus Center is a small price for the state to pay for ameliorating the injury it has previously inflicted.

MARK SLATER
President, Bay Village Neighborhood Association
Boston

[KentXie]

^^
It's just that the opposition gets more say than those that support it. I think those in opposition should just go move out of the city and go live in Springfield or Worcester. Boston is a major city, a really small city and they have to realize that there is no more room to grow but up.

[czsz]

The Bay Village Neighborhood Association, among many other groups, continues to strongly support this project.

I've always liked the Bay Village...

[vanshnookenraggen]

They have a lot to gain from this project, quality-of-life wise. In fact so does the South End which is why I don't understand the opposition.

[BarbaricManchurian]

The Boston Globe weighs in today about the Columbus Center subsidies with their "Short Fuse" editorial.

Development: Enough with the subsidies

The proposed 35-story Columbus Center in the South End was supposed to set the future tone for air rights development above the Massachusetts Turnpike regarding height, mass, open space, and transportation links. Instead, the project is setting the tone for government giveaways. The Patrick administration has awarded $10 million to the Winn-Cassin development team to jump-start the project and may provide a $10 million loan to boot. Now the developer-friendly Menino administration wants to kick in tax-free Empowerment Zone bonds normally used to stimulate businesses in low-income neighborhoods. These subsidies are too deep. The developers already secured a favorable long-term leasing deal from the Pike for the air rights -- just $12.2 million. The Patrick administration says Columbus Center will generate hundreds of jobs. But so will the 75 other construction projects already underway in Boston. If this is the future of building on air rights in Boston, then developers should stay on the ground.

It's over a highway, no wonder it costs so much and they need a little money to start the project. This also has better public benefits then most other construction projects so a little subsidizing for the improvement of the community is something that I support.

[Ron Newman]

But how many times should the developers be allowed to beg for more subsidy? When do you say, "you've got enough, build it now or let someone else do it instead"?

[Bobby Digital]

i think this whole thing is a clusterfuck. 'if the city didnt drag its feet on the approval then construction costs woulda been lower and this thing would have already been built'..... 'the city asked for too much from the developer in improvements to the area'.... 'the state should never give money to a private corp. to cut their initial investment and improve their marginal cost benefit'

Can't the city and state get around giving them money in some way and still get this project done? Cant the state or corp issue bonds to help? cant they allow more height to improve revenue? This thing got very screwed up somewhere along the line and I have to think it has alot to do with nimby's. how do nimby's from 3 or 4 blocks away have any power? people just bitch just to bitch. IGNORE THEM.

Anybody think nimby's would have started a lawsuit over this? do they have the monetary resources to fight a real battle in court? is this just a PR issue so that the city and state just bows to nimby's? what exactly takes place in the approval process? i dont know personally, can somebody with some actual knowledge shed some light on this for me?

[Bos77]

When do you say, "you've got enough, build it now or let someone else do it instead"?

Who else is there? Every other developer (except the very well connected Jon Rosenthal) is probably scared to even propose anything at this point.

If the developer is expected to give benefits back (parks, ground water systems, etc.), why shouldn't the powers that be help them out too? Especially when the delays were due to pacifying the masses of the South End.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I agree with Bobby here, this is a clsuterfuck and it has gone on a bit too long.

[TC]

Is it just me or do people really not understand the difference between grants and loans. All I'm seeing is the word 'Subsidize' used by everyone who has a negative opinion about the project and upon seeing this word it becomes a knee jerk reaction to think the developer is getting a break.

For all that I've read the only grant is the $10M from the state. Every other bit of public funding received by the developer is essentially a loan that will get paid back. (And most of the time it's paid back with interest)

So really the way to look at this is our government is 'investing' in our city.



Now just to point out how ridiculous the media and NIMBY's are with a few numbers .......

1) The Deck is now estimated at $140M dollars (up $100M from original estimate) All the public funding put together doesn't even cover the cost of the deck.
2) If the project construction cost (hard costs) are $500M then the City of Boston can expect permit fees in excess of $5M.
(Maybe the state should just write their check out to the city :) )
3) There are going to be 450 new condos when all built out. At a conservative estimate of $10,000/year in real estate taxes per unit, that is $4.5M annually. (in just two years the same amount of the grant will have been paid to the city in just property takes)

There are countless other benefits to this project; and quite frankly it is embarrassing to the City of Boston that we have so called community activists that are so short sited.

[BostonSkyGuy]

They have a lot to gain from this project, quality-of-life wise. In fact so does the South End which is why I don't understand the opposition.

Don't you understand that blindly opposing every and any development project is part of being a resident of the South End?

I agree with Bobby here, this is a clsuterfuck and it has gone on a bit too long.

This thing should have been built by now. There's no excuse for it to have gone on this far and still not have some sort of resolution. This isn't just one party's fault either, everyone involved has added to the clusterfuck.

I don't really see how anyone including the residents of the South End, can be opposed to this project. The editorial by the Bay Village guy was 100% on, it's going to reconnect three neighborhoods that should have never been disconnected in the first place. Only in Boston could the city fuck up, then have a chance to un-do the fuck up and have it hit every wall possible on the way to doing so. Unbelievable.

[JimboJones]

You guys keep saying everyone against this are members of the neighborhood. But, many who are against it (who care) are from outside the neighborhood, who are complaining about the money being given (or loaned) to the developer.

Make a distinction when you talk about this ... who are you mad at?

Also, estimating that the city will make $10,000 per unit, per year, in real estate taxes is a bit too high, although it doesn't negate your point.

The average new condo will probably be in the $500,000 - $800,000 price range. The property tax, at the current rate of $11.12 per $1,000 of assessed value, means the average tax bill might be $5,500 - $8,800, but then you need to take out the residential exemption of around $1,500 per year.

So, the city will bank $5,000 - $7,500 per year, per condo. Still, a great improvement from the current day .. when we get nothing!

[Ron Newman]

Also, there's a difference between being against the project and being agaisnt the subsidy. I strongly favor the project but question whether it should receive (this much) subsidy. Economic development funds spent here are funds not spent somewhere else that might be more deserving.

[BostonSkyGuy]

Also, there's a difference between being against the project and being agaisnt the subsidy. I strongly favor the project but question whether it should receive (this much) subsidy. Economic development funds spent here are funds not spent somewhere else that might be more deserving.

The money involved ($10 million) seems like a lot, but for what it accomplishes I don't think it's that much at all. You're putting a development in an area of the T-Pike that is horrible. You're re-connecting neighborhoods. The city is also going to make this money back ten-fold over the years. I don't see what the problem is. I can gaurentee that the people against this project are using the subsidy as an excuse why this shouldn't be built. If the subsidy was taken out of the picture they'd find another reason to bitch and complain about.

[TC]

You guys keep saying everyone against this are members of the neighborhood. But, many who are against it (who care) are from outside the neighborhood, who are complaining about the money being given (or loaned) to the developer.

Make a distinction when you talk about this ... who are you mad at?

Adrian Walker - Who wrote that complete trash of a column on 7/10
Martha Walz - Back Bay Representative who for some unknown reason opposes this project.
David Mundel - South End Resident
Ned Flahrety - South End Resident
Shirley Kressel - Activist

All of the above have been quoted as being against the project within the past week. From what I can tell it looks like it is the neighborhood activists, self appointed Boston activists, and sensationalist media who are against this project.

Also surprised I couldn't find a quote from Chuck Turner in the past couple of pages.


Also, estimating that the city will make $10,000 per unit, per year, in real estate taxes is a bit too high, although it doesn't negate your point.

The average new condo will probably be in the $500,000 - $800,000 price range. The property tax, at the current rate of $11.12 per $1,000 of assessed value, means the average tax bill might be $5,500 - $8,800, but then you need to take out the residential exemption of around $1,500 per year.

So, the city will bank $5,000 - $7,500 per year, per condo. Still, a great improvement from the current day .. when we get nothing!

I estimated that the average sale was going to be a million dollars. It could be high, but I don't see anything in that development going for less the $600K and the upper floors will have multi million dollar units. I also didn't figure in the hotel taxes, restaurant taxes, and other sales taxes.

I just wanted to give an idea of what the total revenue could be for the city after the construction is complete.

[stellarfun]

DiMasi rips $10m grant for project
Speaker, Patrick at odds over Columbus Center

By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 19, 2007

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called on Governor Deval Patrick yesterday to rescind the administration's award of $10 million to the controversial Columbus Center project in Boston, calling the grant corporate welfare in a letter that reflects renewed tension between the two Democratic leaders.

In the letter, DiMasi and two other legislators who represent the neighborhoods around the massive proposed development called the administration's decision to give tax dollars to the increasingly expensive project a perfect example of why the Legislature has set aside funds for specific projects, rather than giving the governor discretion on spending.

"The $10 million comes from a fund the Legislature established last year to provide grants to stimulate the creation of badly needed manufacturing jobs," wrote DiMasi and Representatives Byron Rushing and Marty Walz. "We intended for the money to underwrite targeted investments by companies and governmental agencies to help the state's economy expand. We did not set the money aside to help a private developer build million- dollar condos."

The lawmakers contend that the developers of the project, which will connect the Back Bay and South End over the Massachusetts Turnpike, had repeatedly promised that they would not seek public funds to build the condo, hotel, and retail center, an assertion that the developers deny. The Legislature has rejected previous efforts to earmark money for the center, but set up a general economic stimulus pool that the administration recently tapped to award the Columbus Center grant and several others.

For more of the back and forth:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/19/dimasi_rips_10m_grant_for_project?mode=PF

[statler]

Winn Still Waiting For Columbus’ Day
July 16, 2007
By Thomas Grillo,
Reporter

Developer of Controversial Project in South End Hopes $32.5 Million Bond Will Get Ball Rolling

More money. The developer of a controversial project to be built above the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston’s South End neighborhood is hoping a $32.5 million bond will get the long-delayed project under way.

The latest request in public support for Columbus Center comes as the project budget has reached $790 million, more than double the original cost when the mega-development was approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in 2003.

But as the Boston Industrial Development Financing Authority (BIDFA) is set to approve the tax-free financing request, critics of the project are outraged by what they call Boston-based WinnDevelopment’s latest money grab.

“This is another form of public assistance and a complete waste of taxpayer money,” said state Rep. Martha M. Walz, whose Back Bay district abuts the project site. “Roger Cassin said in public forums that he would not seek any public subsidy in exchange for the project’s height and density. But once the gavel was pounded for approval, he went on a wild spree for free money at taxpayer expense.”

Alan Eisner, a spokesman for Cassin, Winn’s managing partner, said public financing was never ruled out. “I wasn’t there, but Mr. Cassin insists that he never said he would not seek public support and Roger is an honorable man.”

James G. Alexander, who served on the Citizens Advisory Committee, a panel appointed to advise Mayor Thomas M. Menino on the project, said Cassin never made an “ironclad” promise not to seek taxpayer money.

“[Walz] is known to be thorough and precise and I do recall Roger said there did not seem to be a need to seek public financing,” Alexander said. “But that was more than five years ago. Reasonable people could agree that when the project’s construction costs escalated, it seemed to be a good use of public money to turn the pollution-choked turnpike into a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.”

Still, there appears to be disagreement about how much public support Winn is seeking. Eisner said the total is $58.6 million: $20.6 million from MassHousing for the affordable units in the project, $15 million in federal New Market Tax Credits, a $10 million Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs Program grant from Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration, $7 million in Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a $4 million benefit from the BIDFA bond and a $2 million Community Development Action Grant Program grant.

Ned Flaherty, a project critic, said the public subsidies are closer to $500 million. In a report prepared for legislators and reporters, the Back Bay resident lists a $198 million discount for the air-rights parcel from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, $132 million in TIF financing and $58 million in federal tax waivers among the biggest items.

But a close examination of the data finds that Flaherty included loans as well as grants. A $4.3 million allocation request by Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, defeated by the Legislature last year, also was included in the tally.

“Among the 14 different items we list, some are outright gifts while others are loans,” he said. “My purpose is to show the amounts are big and to this point there has never been a government accounting of the cost of each of these favors.”

The BIDFA bond is available to Winn because earlier this year the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expanded Boston’s Empowerment Zone to include parcels above the turnpike. The city’s EZ is comprised of depressed areas of the city that need revitalization. Businesses that locate within the zone and create jobs can take advantage of tax credits and bonds. The money generated from Winn’s bond will be used to support construction of a 35-story luxury hotel and a 915-car parking garage that will offer more than 220 jobs.

‘An Important Step’

Columbus Center is a 1.5 million-square-foot neighborhood to be built on four parcels including 7 acres above the turnpike bounded by Clarendon Street, Cahners Way and Columbus Avenue between the Back Bay and the South End.

While many Columbus Center foes attend hearings to oppose public funding for the project, reporters outnumbered residents at the sparsely attended BIDFA hearing last week. Francesco C. Tocci, deputy director for financial services in the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Planning and Economic Development Office who chaired the brief session, said in more than a decade no one has ever attended a hearing at the agency.

“In 11 years, no one has ever showed up,” he said. “Actually, one person did show once but it turned out he had come to the wrong meeting.”

BIDFA funds are below-market interest-rate bonds that are to be paid back in 20 to 30 years. The tax-exempt EZ bonds are issued to acquire land and build new facilities that promise job creation. The agency has dispensed more than $100 million in bonds including $50 million for the Fenway Community Health Center on Boylston Street and $43 million to support construction of the 175-room Hampton Inn & Suites in Roxbury. The borrower, not the city of Boston or the commonwealth of Massachusetts, is pledged to repay the bonds.

Thomas Miller, the BRA’s economic development director who has shepherded Columbus Center for years, said the BIDFA bond could be the final piece of the financial picture for the project.

“This is getting toward the end of the financing road,” he said. “My position has been clear: I’m trying to get this project moving forward and this is an important step. Hopefully, we can get a shovel on the ground before summer’s end.”

Still, the project has had a number of stops and starts, in part, because construction costs have doubled and financing has been a challenge. The cost of the deck to be built over the turnpike has gone from $65 million to $145 million, according to Eisner.

While Winn hopes to commence construction commence shortly, Eisner could not rule out another application for public money.

“We have been putting our financing together with the city, state and private investors that will allow us to go into the ground this summer,” he said. “We still don’t have all the money in place. But we are hopeful to begin because any more delays will increase the cost and we’ll end up with another gap.”

[DudeUrSistersHot]

DiMasi rips $10m grant for project
Speaker, Patrick at odds over Columbus Center

By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 19, 2007

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called on Governor Deval Patrick yesterday to rescind the administration's award of $10 million to the controversial Columbus Center project in Boston, calling the grant corporate welfare in a letter that reflects renewed tension between the two Democratic leaders.

In the letter, DiMasi and two other legislators who represent the neighborhoods around the massive proposed development called the administration's decision to give tax dollars to the increasingly expensive project a perfect example of why the Legislature has set aside funds for specific projects, rather than giving the governor discretion on spending.

"The $10 million comes from a fund the Legislature established last year to provide grants to stimulate the creation of badly needed manufacturing jobs," wrote DiMasi and Representatives Byron Rushing and Marty Walz. "We intended for the money to underwrite targeted investments by companies and governmental agencies to help the state's economy expand. We did not set the money aside to help a private developer build million- dollar condos."

The lawmakers contend that the developers of the project, which will connect the Back Bay and South End over the Massachusetts Turnpike, had repeatedly promised that they would not seek public funds to build the condo, hotel, and retail center, an assertion that the developers deny. The Legislature has rejected previous efforts to earmark money for the center, but set up a general economic stimulus pool that the administration recently tapped to award the Columbus Center grant and several others.

For more of the back and forth:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/19/dimasi_rips_10m_grant_for_project?mode=PF

I'm getting so tired of this guy... i want a new house speaker!

[InTheHood]

While the $10 MM subsidy is certainly open to question on grounds that Ron has articulated well (i.e., other neighborhoods and cities more deserving of scarce resources), the whole notion that Columbus Center is being further subsidized by "below market" cost of the air rights to the developer is a complete figment of Ned Flaherty's and Marty Walz's imagination, and sadly echoed in the Herald editorial this morning.

The lack of sophistication in the economic thinking in this city is sometimes amazing.

To state the obvious, for something to be "below market" implies that there is a market to compare. But there are so few air rights projects (and in such different locations) it is difficult to establish their value. And because it will clearly cost tens of millions to build the deck (a poster above suggested $100 MM, which is plausible), the value of air rights parcels is a tiny fraction of the value of parcels on solid ground of similar size. Indeed, it isn't clear to me that there is a ton of value in these air rights parcels themselves - the costs other developers incur to acquire land is in the case of air rights largely required to build the required decks, even if the leases are free. Certainly if developers had been held to the zoning standards of the surrounding neighborhoods (i.e., permitting only modest height), it is clear that the value of this air rights lease would be zero.

Walz and Flaherty, who have opposed this project from the start, continue to throw around numbers that suggest that if we just snapped our fingers the decks would magically appear - and to imply that if the parcels were handed over to another developer, a lower density project would appear on the site in a jiffy. Flaherty is a garden variety NIMBY who lives in 75 Clarendon and would just as soon the Pike be left untouched, so his intellectual dishonesty isn't hard to understand. (The most rabid opposition to CC has always been from residents of 75 Clarendon and the Pope building whose views would be compromised - they LIKE the trench). Walz, however, is an elected representative and a lawyer of some academic distinction. Is she being disingenuous, or is she really this dumb?

[palindrome]

A host of editorials from the sensationalist globe today.


Public subsidy, public disapproval

July 21, 2007

WHEN HOUSING and Economic Development Secretary Daniel O'Connell says that the proposed Columbus Center will "reconnect two important neighborhoods in Boston," whom is he kidding? There's no disconnect between our neighborhoods. Anyone on Clarendon Street who wants access to the South End just ambles across Columbus Avenue ("DiMasi rips $10m grant for project," Page A1, July 19).

Now picture the disruption resulting from a behemoth condo, hotel, and retail center hovering over this residential area. If "public support" means neighborhood reaction, we've already testified that this enormous development will divide our communities. It doesn't take an urban planner to visualize the ensuing chaos and alienation.

It's reassuring that Representatives Byron Rushing and Marty Walz and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi are listening to the folks who elected them.

JEAN GIBRAN
Boston

WE AGREE with the Globe's assessment regarding the discussion of public subsidies for the proposed Columbus Center: "If this is the future of building on air rights in Boston, then developers should stay on the ground" ("Development: Enough with the subsidies," Editorial, July 16).

Many of us feel the sting of bait and switch. The approved project exceeds the community design guidelines set forth in the 2000 Boston Redevelopment Authority publication "A Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston." It will result in a 35-story tower looming over the westernmost parcel. As the project has evolved, it has ballooned in square feet, and the affordable housing component has not been fully incorporated. Although the public record seems incomplete and the participants in the process were prevented from electronically recording the meetings, those who live in the affected neighborhoods were repeatedly told that height and mass were required to make the project economically viable and that the developers were using their own funds. Now we find that they want a huge public bailout. It is time to stop any consideration of public financing for this project. If it is too expensive for the developer, it should be scaled down to a project that fits "A Civic Vision."

JACKIE YESSIAN
Chairwoman
Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay Boston

RECENT REPORTING on the public subsidies given to Boston's proposed Columbus Center project have failed to mention what makes this project different from others in Massachusetts and uniquely ill-suited to public subsidy: The Turnpike Authority chose this developer without an open competition. Other than the developer, no one knows what the economics of this project are or whether this project is the best use of this real estate. The market never had the chance to operate, as it does through the bidding procedures otherwise required for the sale of public land in Massachusetts.

We do know that this developer has had an extraordinarily long time to try to make the proposal work. The market has determined that it does not.

MARK MERANTE
Boston
The writer is a member of the Columbus Center Citizens Advisory Committee.

REGARDING THE Columbus Center and similar proposals, does it really make sense in this age of security concerns to be building over open highways ?

ALLAN DUTTON
Jamaica Plain


With that said, is the columbus center actually 100% approved? Is there still a chance the Nimby's can win, besides the $10m?

[vanshnookenraggen]

Well, it is approved, it just isn't being constructed. The problem is the long we wait the more expensive it gets, which is why there are all these subsidies.

[palindrome]

But basically they could start construction anytime they want providing the funds are in order? I am sure they are looking into other funding options such as bonds and loans etc. Each day this project seems to get worse and worse support. I fear that it is going to be axed.

[JimboJones]

Note to Allan Dutton: You're a fucking moron.

[palindrome]

haha legit. I see the terrorist have won!

[JimboJones]

Okay, I don't much care for how they came out, but if you don't know a lot about where the Columbus Center project will be built (ha ha, as if!), here are some videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1aSN099ls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0wplXW_qU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCZOS6txRJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnJtsOylWs

If you shrink down the videos, they look better (there's a control on the YouTube video screen).

Next up: I cook toast, on cam!

[justin]

That's great, thanks!

[palindrome]

Towering hypocrisy over project

July 26, 2007

YOUR JULY 16 editorial ("Development: Enough with the subsidies") and chorus of July 21 letters ("Public subsidy, public disapproval") against state subsidy of the proposed Columbus Center project all ignore the fact that the project as approved requires public benefits such as parks, subsidized housing, and subsidized day care.

In most places it's the public and not private developers that must pay for those benefits.

Ironically, the same activists who complain about the lack of affordable housing don't want to see any housing built at all. Kudos to Governor Patrick for saying no to not-in-my-backyard types.

JOHN A. SHOPE
Boston

The writer is past president of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association.

[statler]

^^ Ok, what is Mr Shope's login here? :D

[KentXie]

Finally, someone who can actually see reality.

[Mike]

Winn's folly
By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist | July 25, 2007


House Speaker Sal DiMasi got it exactly right last week when he asked: How many times are taxpayers going to pay for Arthur Winn's deck?

Boston is in the midst of the kind of building boom we haven't seen in more than a decade, and Winn is desperate to finally get a shovel in the ground on Columbus Center, his long-proposed mini-city across the Massachusetts Turnpike. The reluctant developer has a reported $40 million of his own money in the deal. Now, he says, it's our turn to give.

Winn's story -- if not his numbers -- is always the same: Blame the deck.

The man has sold the same story everywhere he has gone. He told the city and the community that he had to build far bigger than the zoning allowed to pay for the high cost of building over the turnpike. Then he used the same story with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to justify a below-market rent in negotiating a lease for the air rights. Now he is back for more, making a case for large, direct public subsidies after suggesting (at the least) that he had no plans to go that route. As DiMasi put it: How many times do we have to pay for one deck?

Winn, a Republican moneybags, spent four years making his case for subsidies in every corner of the Republican Romney administration. Here is what he heard -- repeatedly -- from the pro-business Romney people: Apply like any developer for the various housing and transportation programs, but there is going to be no special deal for Arthur Winn. Now Democrat Deval Patrick, champion of property tax relief for the little guy, is willing to write the kind of large check that Mitt Romney, our CEO governor, would not to build million-dollar condos and a luxury hotel.

Patrick has signed off on $10 million for infrastructure costs from a fund the Legislature authorized for economic development. This is on top of approximately $60 million in a variety of public financing sources, including loans, grants, and city bonds. DiMasi, an architect of that economic stimulus fund, is appropriately unhappy. The persistent Mr. Winn, as always, wants more still. (It was just two years ago Winn's pal, state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, slipped $4.3 million into the stimulus bill for the deck, which DiMasi killed. Now Winn wants $20 million.)

It's the deck, he says. The price of the deck, Winn says, has gone from $60 million to $160 million in six years. But an analysis completed for the Turnpike Authority in March 2006 as part of the lease negotiation put the premium of building over the turnpike far lower, $34 million. Another study in 2002 put the premium at about $21 million.

"Only $12 million of the $800 million project is direct grants," says Alan Eisner, a Winn spokesman. "The rest is low-interest loans that will have to be paid back. In return, the city is getting over $50 million in direct public benefits that were worked out with the community in 100 community meetings." (Public benefits, by the way, the public is now expected to fund.)

In the end, Winn made a bad bet. He lost valuable time trying to squeeze tens of millions out of the public sector. The real cost, however, was in time: While he hesitated, the cost of the project exploded from $300 million to $800 million, or so he says. Condo prices softened, and other developers leaped ahead of him in the market. This is what risk is all about.

Columbus Center would be a good project for the city, helping to knit together the South End and the Back Bay. But not if it does not make economic sense. It is not like there aren't plenty of others things that need doing. How much, just for starters, is replacing the crumbling Storrow Drive tunnel going to cost?

Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902.


Link (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07/25/winns_folly/)

[czsz]

Did the nearly $20 billion Big Dig make economic sense?

If it did, it did so in the same ways Columbus Center would:
-it helped bury a highway and created parkland, improving real estate values
-it spurred development that can be taxed by the city, some of which will be housing that will relieve the dearth of supply that drives up housing costs
-it created many construction jobs

Additionally, no one seemed to mind how often construction costs have seesawed over the two decade period the Big Dig has been under construction.

So why can Boston build the gargantuan, $20 billion project and not the much smaller one for a tiny fraction of the cost?

[vanshnookenraggen]

It's the deck, he says. The price of the deck, Winn says, has gone from $60 million to $160 million in six years. But an analysis completed for the Turnpike Authority in March 2006 as part of the lease negotiation put the premium of building over the turnpike far lower, $34 million. Another study in 2002 put the premium at about $21 million.


How can you say that the price is one thing 5 years ago when you just said the price went up over 6 years?!?!

[statler]

"Only $12 million of the $800 million project is direct grants," says Alan Eisner, a Winn spokesman. "The rest is low-interest loans that will have to be paid back. In return, the city is getting over $50 million in direct public benefits that were worked out with the community in 100 community meetings." (Public benefits, by the way, the public is now expected to fund.)
Is he saying that as if it were a bad thing? :?:

[KentXie]

In the end, Winn made a bad bet. He lost valuable time trying to squeeze tens of millions out of the public sector. The real cost, however, was in time: While he hesitated, the cost of the project exploded from $300 million to $800 million, or so he says. Condo prices softened, and other developers leaped ahead of him in the market. This is what risk is all about.

O please. If it wasn't the NIMBYs whining about every aspect of this tower and the FAA making up the most ridiculous excuse of it being in the way of flight paths, this project would have benn done. The blame goes to those NIMBYs, not just Winn.

[BostonObserver]

If the developer no longer has to include the 45 affordable housing units on site then the project might be viable.

My dollar figures are estimates
800,000 market rate
300,000 less the affordable rate
---------
500,000 times the number of units 45 = $22,500,000

and 45 fewer $800,000+ buyers looking in the neighbor hood.

Add to the the subsidized day care and the affordable units built in other areas.

this is not mitigation is greed on the mayors part and the neighborhood

[stellarfun]

Bailey shades his numbers as much as he accuses Winn of doing. Maybe Bailey is trying to show he can out-scam Winn.

It's the deck, he says. The price of the deck, Winn says, has gone from $60 million to $160 million in six years. But an analysis completed for the Turnpike Authority in March 2006 as part of the lease negotiation put the premium of building over the turnpike far lower, $34 million. Another study in 2002 put the premium at about $21 million.

The 'premium' as I understand it is the additional cost of having to build a deck as your foundation, when compared to what would have been your cost for excavating and building up from traditional terra firma. Bailey's numbers therefore are apples and oranges, and he should know better.

And as the Globe itself noted just two days ago, the cost of filling in a badly deteriorated Storrow Drive tunnel and replacing it with a surface road is now $80 million. So a big deck over the turnpike seems relatively cheap by comparison.

[tocoto]

The state should pay for the deck, it's a no brainer for all the deck parcels. If Winn can't make CC work on the paid for deck then reopen the bidding.

[statler]

State agency ignores own guidelines in condo loans
Awards $20m set aside for apartments

By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | August 22, 2007

A state agency created to help foster affordable housing ignored its own guidelines by awarding more than $20 million in housing loans to the controversial Columbus Center development.

A spokesman for MassHousing, a quasi-public agency, acknowledged that the money for the low-interest loans will come out of funds specifically set aside for affordable rental apartments, not condos in a high-end complex such as those planned above the Massachusetts Turnpike between Back Bay and the South End.

"Columbus Center at this point is the one exception of a project that isn't rental and doesn't meet the guidelines," said Eric Gedstad, MassHousing's communication manager. "But it is still a worthy project, so we made a commitment to it."

The $700 million megadevelopment, which will span three city blocks, is one of 36 projects to get money from the $100 million "priority development fund" created by Governor Mitt Romney in 2004. MassHousing approved the Columbus Center loans last year, although they have not yet been paid out.

Governor Deval Patrick's administration came under fire recently when it awarded developers Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin a $10 million grant to construct a deck over the turnpike. Lawmakers and community activists said the developers had repeatedly said they would not seek public subsidies for the project, an assertion that Winn and Cassin deny. A request for an additional $10 million grant is still pending.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who urged Patrick to rescind the $10 million grant, said the project should not receive MassHousing loans that were designated for another purpose.

"Funds set aside to encourage affordable rental housing should not be used to help subsidize multimillion-dollar condos," DiMasi said last week.

"If MassHousing cannot provide an adequate explanation for whether these funds were appropriately used, I would hope the auditor or inspector general investigates."

Representative Martha M. Walz of the Back Bay called the agency's decision to funnel rental housing money to Columbus Center "utterly bizarre."

"It's one more bizarre example of people trying to save what appears to be an unviable project," she said. "If it isn't viable, it shouldn't be built. Why are we throwing money at something the private market won't support?"

Not only was the fund designated for rental housing, but the agency had developed guidelines limiting loans to no more than $75,000 per unit.

In their initial loan application, the Columbus Center developers said that 44 units would be affordable, which would mean that they are receiving more than $450,000 per affordable unit, about six times the limit.

They have now increased the pledge to 75 units, which would translate into nearly $275,000 per unit. The complex is slated to have a total of 443 units.

MassHousing guidelines said exceptions to the $75,000 rule could be made in two situations: If the loans were to be repaid by developers quickly or there was a need to loan more money to meet "high priority public policy objectives."

But neither of the two loans approved by MassHousing in 2006 -- one for $15 million and another for $5.6 million -- is scheduled to be repaid quickly.

The larger one, which carries an interest rate of only 4 percent, does not have to be repaid for at least 30 years. The smaller loan has a 6 percent interest rate and must be paid back within 35 years.

The project also does not comply with MassHousing affordability guidelines, which require that at least 25 percent of all units in a project be affordable to households who earn no more than 80 percent of the Boston area's median income.

In its application, the Columbus developers said 22 of the 44 affordable units would qualify, or about 5 percent of the 443 units in the complex, while the other 22 would be affordable to those earning no more than 120 percent of the median income.

Alan Eisner, a spokesman for Winn Development, said the developers did not specifically request money from this fund, but said public assistance is critical if the project is to be built.

"We feel the low-interest loans are justified and necessary in light of the unprecedented public benefits of this project, which now total in excess of $50 million including transportation improvements, three new parks, and a new ground-water system," Eisner said. "With the housing market in turmoil nationwide, this project will provide a timely boost to the city of Boston."

Gedstad said that while the developers did not apply for money specifically from the priority development fund, the fund was the only one available to provide the gap financing the developers said they would need to pull together enough money to pay for the project.

The agency tapped the fund despite the guidelines, Gedstad said, because Columbus Center represents "a rare opportunity to transform the landscape of downtown Boston and most importantly because our mission is to provide some affordable condominiums in a neighborhood where there really is no such thing."

The $20.6 million in loans is not the only money Winn Development is in line to receive from the fund.

MassHousing also approved an additional $6 million in loans for two other Winn projects -- both apartment complexes.

Between the three developments, Winn Development will receive nearly a third of the $97 million that has already been committed to projects.
Link (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/08/22/state_agency_ignores_own_guidelines_in_condo_loans/)

[palindrome]

"It's one more bizarre example of people trying to save what appears to be an unviable project," she said. "If it isn't viable, it shouldn't be built. Why are we throwing money at something the private market won't support?"

Well, if we eliminated the mandatory parks, and allowed it to be a little taller, then it would be viable, but i am sure you have a problem with that too. :roll:

Also, THIS IS A LOAN! The money will come back, plus a large increase in tax revenue from the condo's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JimboJones]

I have to come down on the side of critics on this one.

What a terrible misuse of funds. Regardless of what happens, in the future, whether or not it is a loan or is paid back ... what were they thinking???

[czsz]

Great, a front page Globe wannabe-muckraking piece that will cause even more delays, which will cause the project's cost to rise even more, which will cause the developers to seek more funds from the state, which will have to reject them for political purposes.

The critics have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mark my words: if Columbus Center never gets built, no developer is going to want to approach building something like this for the next few decades. The only project that looks like it'll ever get put over the Pike is the Kenmore one, because the only group with more sway in this city than King NIMBY is the Red Sox.

[denatlanta]

What a terrible misuse of funds. Regardless of what happens, in the future, whether or not it is a loan or is paid back ... what were they thinking???

"They" were thinking of investing in an awesome project that would cover a chunk of the Pike, reconnect neighborhoods, add jobs, hotel rooms, apartments, condos, parks, etc...along with millions of dollars paid to the city/state in taxes over many years. A real shame if this project doesn't happen.

[kennedy]

denatlanta, what the hell? couldnt come up with something original? or is it you, atlantaden. i am most confuddled.

[atlantaden]

Confuddled

So freakin' confused and befuddled, you are unable to even distinguish between the two.

Cool definition from the Urban Dictionary. I am confuddled as to what it was about Columbus Center that caused so many NIMBY's to oppose this project so strenuously.

[kennedy]

So it is you, then.

[atlantaden]

i am most confuddled

Not to keep this going but....you said it first!! But yes, Kennedy, you got me most confuddled.

[kennedy]

Are denatlanta and atlantaden the same person?

[atlantaden]

You're a sharp one Kennedy! I'm one in the same, I'll drop you a line to explain this confuddling situation (way off topic)...I was clueless and you caught it!

[xec]

Probably the most interesting bit of news in the Courant article being discussed in the Prudential Center/Exeter Apts thread is the very last sentence:

The renewed interest in large-scale development in the Back Bay comes as construction continues apace on The Clarendon, a 32-story residential tower, and the groundwork is laid for work to begin next month on Columbus Center, the sprawling air-rights complex between the Back Bay and South End.

[Ned Flaherty]

-----No NIMBYs found - Forum member InTheHood was all wrong to write on 20 July: “Flaherty is a garden variety NIMBY who lives at 75 Clarendon and would just as soon the Pike be left untouched” and “the most rabid opposition to CC has always been from residents of 75 Clarendon and the Pope building whose views would be compromised - they LIKE the trench.”
-----None of that is true.
-----I am an urban planning activist who eleven years ago co-founded the non-profit Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, which educates citizens about urban planning issues. For 15 years, I have endorsed fully developing all air rights over I-90 (turnpike) and I-93 (Big Dig), and all public comments from residents in both abutting buildings have agreed.
-----There is no record of any “NIMBY” opposition to air rights development; that is merely a label used to dismiss valid criticisms of the failed aspects of this 12-year old proposal.
-----Project was sold, then became insolvent - After the former owners sold both the Columbus Center company and the project on 15 March 2006, the new owners wrote to state officials that their project would be insolvent without a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies. [See "Is Columbus Center up in the air?" Boston Globe, 25 August 2006, at www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/25/is_columbus_center_up_in_the_air/.] They never paid the rent, investor funds weren’t released, bank loans weren’t disbursed, insurance policies weren’t issued, and the 7-year construction schedule never started.
-----What citizens still oppose - Here’s help for forum members like Atlantaden, who admits being confused about why so many people oppose Columbus Center. People across the city oppose: (1) deletion of the 2-acre public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan; (2) conversion of three promised public parks into privately owned gardens; (3) air pollution from 14 railway and roadway tunnels being captured, concentrated, and vented into the community; (4) no competitive bids; (5) no financial disclosure; and (6) hundreds of millions of dollars in 14 public subsidies to a project that was proposed at 300% of the allowable density because it was going to be subsidy-free.
-----In addition to multiple grants and low-interest government loans, the subsidies include federal income taxes waived for many years, state income taxes waived for 7 years, and city property taxes waived for 19 years, so that the new owners’ taxes are waived, while the public pays for the project.
-----Most recently, the new owners bribed a public agency $500,000 to re-draw Boston's poverty boundary so it illegally wraps around their luxury skyscraper complex, to get low-interest loans and income tax breaks from federal "anti-poverty" programs. Even the bribe itself was to be paid using public funds. [See "HUD to investigate expansion of Boston Empowerment Zone", South End News, 16 August 2007, in on-line news archives at www.SouthEndNews.com.]
-----Everyone wants air rights developed. But no responsible citizen wants non-competitive awards, to unaudited developers, who increase air pollution instead of filtering it, who privatize or delete required public parks, for a project where the former owners promised zero subsidies to get their approvals, and new owners now demand that the public fund their costs, their profits, and even their bribes.[/code]

[chris]

am an urban planning activist who eleven years ago co-founded the non-profit Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, which educates citizens about urban planning issues.

How pedantic of you.

A couple of things...


-----There is no record of any “NIMBY” opposition to air rights development; that is merely a label used to dismiss valid criticisms of the failed aspects of this 12-year old proposal.

NIMBYism can apply to valid and invalid criticisms, but it is nice to see you assume as a basis of your statement that, of course, your criticisms are ipso facto valid.

They may be valid to you, but not to others.

----- People across the city oppose: (1) deletion of the 2-acre public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan; . . . (3) air pollution from 14 railway and roadway tunnels being captured, concentrated, and vented into the community; . . .

As to (1), this is a misstatement of the Mater Plan. The Master plan does not "require" a 2 acre public park. All of the language in the master plan is purely aspiration except one paragraph:

In order to preserve quality of life while still securing feasible
air rights development on these parcels, buildings taller than
150 feet may be acceptable on Parcel 16 in return for the
creation of a substantial public park on Parcel 18 or possibly
Parcel 17. (Page 84)

That's the best you got. Even assuming that is enough to "require" a park (because of the height), it says parcel 17 OR 18. Furthermore, the master plan doesn't include planning for parcel 19, which states it is too small and difficult to develop at all. So are you opposed to the developer's plan to build a park there because it isn't in the master plan?

Between the part at 19, and the park over the rail yards on 17, that's 2 acres of parks (what your asking for on 18). I hardly see the difference. Not to mention that there is "valid" criticism that the master plan's park proposal for parcel 18 is really bad.

As to (3), the master plan doesn't speak of this as a problem, and nowhere have I seen this being a problem raised by anyone but you. If anything, the master plan views the covering of the masspike as being beneficial in terms of pollution to adjacent neighborhoods Do you have a source or a citation to one? [/quote]

[stellarfun]

-----No NIMBYs found -
-----What citizens still oppose - Here’s help for forum members like Atlantaden, who admits being confused about why so many people oppose Columbus Center. People across the city oppose: (1) deletion of the 2-acre public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan; (2) conversion of three promised public parks into privately owned gardens; (3) air pollution from 14 railway and roadway tunnels being captured, concentrated, and vented into the community; (4) no competitive bids; (5) no financial disclosure; and (6) hundreds of millions of dollars in 14 public subsidies to a project that was proposed at 300% of the allowable density because it was going to be subsidy-free.

Re:
(1) and (2) The May 2006 Turnpike press release speaks of the three public parks: a 24,000 sq ft park, a 2,000 sq ft park, and an 11,400 sq ft park. Are these parks no longer public, and what is the evidence for these parks now becoming 'private'?http://www.massturnpike.com/user-cgi/news.cgi?dbkey=225&type=Archived&src=newsarchive

Re:
(3) This is disingenuous. To say you have supported building over every air rights parcel, yet object to venting vehicle and train pollutants. Where are those pollutants supposed to go? Where do you think they go now?

Re:
(4) I don't know the specifics of the bidding process, if any, for the Columbus Center parcels. However, my understanding is that recent air rights awards have produced generally only one bidder. And what criteria would/should the Turnpike Authority use if it issued a request for bids. Would not maximize the return to the MTA be high? For Columbus Center, MTA is not selling the air rights, they are leasing them for 99 years. IMO, leasing tends to depreciate value over the very long term

-----Everyone wants air rights developed. But no responsible citizen wants non-competitive awards, to unaudited developers, who increase air pollution instead of filtering it, who privatize or delete required public parks, for a project where the former owners promised zero subsidies to get their approvals, and new owners now demand that the public fund their costs, their profits, and even their bribes.[/code]

Who were the former owners of this development? And when did the former owners sell Columbus Center rights to the current owners?

[KentXie]

It also wasn't just NIMBYs complaining with a ridiculous reason. I still remember the FAA stated CC was a safety hazard for cargo planes and how they have to lighten their load so that they won't crash into CC. Seems like they either forgot about the JHT next door or the JHT's windows reflected the sky enough that it camouflages with the background and becomes invisible to the pilots.

[BarbaricManchurian]

-----No NIMBYs found - Forum member InTheHood was all wrong to write on 20 July: “Flaherty is a garden variety NIMBY who lives at 75 Clarendon and would just as soon the Pike be left untouched” and “the most rabid opposition to CC has always been from residents of 75 Clarendon and the Pope building whose views would be compromised - they LIKE the trench.”
-----None of that is true.
-----I am an urban planning activist who eleven years ago co-founded the non-profit Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, which educates citizens about urban planning issues. For 15 years, I have endorsed fully developing all air rights over I-90 (turnpike) and I-93 (Big Dig), and all public comments from residents in both abutting buildings have agreed.
-----There is no record of any “NIMBY” opposition to air rights development; that is merely a label used to dismiss valid criticisms of the failed aspects of this 12-year old proposal.
-----Project was sold, then became insolvent - After the former owners sold both the Columbus Center company and the project on 15 March 2006, the new owners wrote to state officials that their project would be insolvent without a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies. [See "Is Columbus Center up in the air?" Boston Globe, 25 August 2006, at www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/25/is_columbus_center_up_in_the_air/.] They never paid the rent, investor funds weren’t released, bank loans weren’t disbursed, insurance policies weren’t issued, and the 7-year construction schedule never started.
-----What citizens still oppose - Here’s help for forum members like Atlantaden, who admits being confused about why so many people oppose Columbus Center. People across the city oppose: (1) deletion of the 2-acre public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan; (2) conversion of three promised public parks into privately owned gardens; (3) air pollution from 14 railway and roadway tunnels being captured, concentrated, and vented into the community; (4) no competitive bids; (5) no financial disclosure; and (6) hundreds of millions of dollars in 14 public subsidies to a project that was proposed at 300% of the allowable density because it was going to be subsidy-free.
-----In addition to multiple grants and low-interest government loans, the subsidies include federal income taxes waived for many years, state income taxes waived for 7 years, and city property taxes waived for 19 years, so that the new owners’ taxes are waived, while the public pays for the project.
-----Most recently, the new owners bribed a public agency $500,000 to re-draw Boston's poverty boundary so it illegally wraps around their luxury skyscraper complex, to get low-interest loans and income tax breaks from federal "anti-poverty" programs. Even the bribe itself was to be paid using public funds. [See "HUD to investigate expansion of Boston Empowerment Zone", South End News, 16 August 2007, in on-line news archives at www.SouthEndNews.com.]
-----Everyone wants air rights developed. But no responsible citizen wants non-competitive awards, to unaudited developers, who increase air pollution instead of filtering it, who privatize or delete required public parks, for a project where the former owners promised zero subsidies to get their approvals, and new owners now demand that the public fund their costs, their profits, and even their bribes.[/code]

The developers don't have to provide a park, and they are. So why are you complaining about this project? Even if this was totally government funded, I will support this project because it has NO negatives. Beautiful tower, beautiful park, covering a wide industrial looking trench right now. Why are you so rabid in your opposition? Are you afraid of anything new? Go live in Wyoming then on your own ranch, you can control everything, how bout not having a cell phone, TV, computer, and car? How come you're so hypocritical when you enjoy new stuff when you won't allow new stuff in your neighborhood? Things change, Boston is a CITY, where there's HIGH DENSITY stuff, that's why you shouldn't complain about density, and if you do, move out. Boston won't be what you imagined it to be, so stop trying to make it that. In doing so, you and your ABN gang with Shirley Kressel has paralyzed most development in Boston and kept it in the 20th century. At least we have the BRA and the mayor to get at least some development done, but not enough. You love the trench, but 99% of city residents don't. So why don't you stage a camp out on the trench to save it since you love the view so much? Or better yet, jump off a bridge over the Pike and get run over. We don't want you crap NIMBYs besmirching the beautiful city of Boston.

[singbat]

-----No NIMBYs found - Forum member InTheHood was all wrong to write on 20 July: “Flaherty is a garden variety NIMBY who lives at 75 Clarendon and would just as soon the Pike be left untouched” and “the most rabid opposition to CC has always been from residents of 75 Clarendon and the Pope building whose views would be compromised - they LIKE the trench.”
-----None of that is true.
-----I am an urban planning activist who eleven years ago co-founded the non-profit Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, which educates citizens about urban planning issues. For 15 years, I have endorsed fully developing all air rights over I-90 (turnpike) and I-93 (Big Dig), and all public comments from residents in both abutting buildings have agreed.
-----There is no record of any “NIMBY” opposition to air rights development; that is merely a label used to dismiss valid criticisms of the failed aspects of this 12-year old proposal.
-----Project was sold, then became insolvent - After the former owners sold both the Columbus Center company and the project on 15 March 2006, the new owners wrote to state officials that their project would be insolvent without a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies. [See "Is Columbus Center up in the air?" Boston Globe, 25 August 2006, at www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/08/25/is_columbus_center_up_in_the_air/.] They never paid the rent, investor funds weren’t released, bank loans weren’t disbursed, insurance policies weren’t issued, and the 7-year construction schedule never started.
-----What citizens still oppose - Here’s help for forum members like Atlantaden, who admits being confused about why so many people oppose Columbus Center. People across the city oppose: (1) deletion of the 2-acre public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan; (2) conversion of three promised public parks into privately owned gardens; (3) air pollution from 14 railway and roadway tunnels being captured, concentrated, and vented into the community; (4) no competitive bids; (5) no financial disclosure; and (6) hundreds of millions of dollars in 14 public subsidies to a project that was proposed at 300% of the allowable density because it was going to be subsidy-free.
-----In addition to multiple grants and low-interest government loans, the subsidies include federal income taxes waived for many years, state income taxes waived for 7 years, and city property taxes waived for 19 years, so that the new owners’ taxes are waived, while the public pays for the project.
-----Most recently, the new owners bribed a public agency $500,000 to re-draw Boston's poverty boundary so it illegally wraps around their luxury skyscraper complex, to get low-interest loans and income tax breaks from federal "anti-poverty" programs. Even the bribe itself was to be paid using public funds. [See "HUD to investigate expansion of Boston Empowerment Zone", South End News, 16 August 2007, in on-line news archives at www.SouthEndNews.com.]
-----Everyone wants air rights developed. But no responsible citizen wants non-competitive awards, to unaudited developers, who increase air pollution instead of filtering it, who privatize or delete required public parks, for a project where the former owners promised zero subsidies to get their approvals, and new owners now demand that the public fund their costs, their profits, and even their bribes.[/code]

Welcome. Good to see the other side showing up to discuss.

[kennedy]

Is this for real? Well, gotta give some respect, so welcome. Invite more of your developer-munching friends to come, we'd love to hear them. And, where'd you find out about this site?

-Edited by the moderator.

[Mike]

Welcome. Good to see the other side showing up to discuss.


Agreed.

Welcome to the board, Ned. Hope we hear more from you.

[shiz02130]

Thanks for posting, Ned.

[czsz]

To answer but one charge: how can one logically be for covering the Pike and against the "pollution" of vent stacks? The amount of exhaust being released from Pike traffic will be the same as it is now, even if unfiltered. A project should not be held hostage because it maintains the status quo air quality and fails to go above and beyond its goals to improve it.

Apropos, the noise pollution from the Pike would be drastically reduced.

[Ned Flaherty]

Chris and Stellarfun, your thoughtful, intelligent questions overlapped a lot, so I combined the answers in this Q&A.

Q-1. Can air pollution be avoided in air rights development?
A-1. Yes. All I-90 and I-93 air pollution can be treated using technology identified during the Big Dig begun in 1984, and during New York’s World Trade Center site work begun in 2001.

Q-2. What happens to the air pollution?
A-2. It’s exhausted back into the communities. Four years ago, MTA, BRA, and the owners of Columbus Center decided to build at least 15 exhaust vents (12 mechanized + 3 non-mechanized) to capture, concentrate, and return all air pollution from the 14 rail way and road way tunnels below – untreated – back into the communities above. The average turnpike fan will deliver 577,273 cubic feet of highly concentrated toxic air per minute, creating a cross-town public health crisis. They kept this decision secret until after the Columbus Center public hearings were finished. I’ve illustrated here the 12 mechanized vents (red rectangles) and their impact areas (pink circles), using a map from the Master Plan, vent locations from the MTA vent study, and impact area diameters based on thousands of studies on file at the National Library of Medicine.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Air-rights-pollution-map.jpg

Q-3. Why doesn’t covering the transportation corridor end the pollution?
A-3. Concealment doesn’t constitute cleansing. Visually covering some pollution points did generate some pretty watercolors painted from safe angles, but exhausting 100% of the concentrated, polluted air back into the communities prevents any air quality improvement.

Q-4. Does the Master Plan consider turnpike air pollution a problem?
A-4. Yes. On PDF page 39, under “goals for the corridor”, the Master Plan states, “Protect the residential neighborhoods from transportation-related noise and air-pollution.”

Q-5. Does the Commonwealth consider turnpike air pollution a problem?
A-5. Yes. On 18 March 2003, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a 15-page “Draft Environmental Impact Report Certificate #12459-R” that required the developer to disclose the then-secret MTA vent study, “Conceptual Ventilation Study for the Civic Vision for Turnpike Air Rights in Boston” and to report on those findings regarding air rights development over the transportation corridor. The developers withheld the MTA vent study for years, and when EOEA-MEPA forced its disclosure, the developer buried it on page 891 of a 1,331-page impact report released on 15 May 2003, after public hearings had ended, to ensure it wouldn't be discussed. But the vent study didn’t inform the public as the Secretary had prescribed, and today, over four years later, even members of this forum remain unaware of the issues it presents.

Q-6. Does the federal government consider turnpike air pollution a problem?
A-6. Yes. The Clean Air Act of 1990 requires protection for “susceptible populations.” The latest study, from Tufts University dated 9 August 2007, concludes that all near-highway residents — everyone living in Boston’s air rights neighborhoods — are susceptible populations. [An abstract and the full report are at www.EHJournal.net/content/6/1/23 for viewing an downloading.] The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ambient Quality Air Standards Manager, Dr. Karen Martin, stated at the July 2007 federal conference on particulate matter that the Clean Air Act requires that such communities receive “health protection with an adequate margin of safety.”

Q-7. Are the owners keeping their promises to end air pollution?
A-7. No. Columbus Center’s new owner testified to Boston City Council that all of the fumes would be “hermetically sealed below the site.” In fact, there are no airtight seals at all; none were proposed, none were approved, none are planned, and 100% of today’s and tomorrow’s air pollution would be exhausted — untreated — into residential communities. The new owner's testimony can be seen in the videotape of Boston City Council’s Committee Hearing on Planning & Economic Development, Docket 0524, 5 May 2006, around minute #14, at www.CityofBoston.gov/CityCouncil/cc_Video_Library.asp?id=197.

Q-8. Does the Master Plan require a park?
A-8. Yes. PDF pages 1, 15, 17, 80, 83, 84, 90, and 91 in the Master Plan illustrate that whenever the Parcel 16 tower exceeds 150', there must be a single, contiguous, 2-acre public park to compensate. The new owners insist upon a 420-foot skyscraper, so the 2-acre park is required, yet they replaced that park with a 633-car garage.

Q-9. What’s the difference between a single, contiguous park and multiple smaller parks?
A-9. Plenty. The sum of one contiguous park is superior to the total of four smaller ones on different streets, because chopping up the square feet diminishes the benefit, as shown in these public domain images adapted from the proposal.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Park-versus-park-ettes.jpg

Q-10. Is anyone opposed to Parcel 19 as open space?
A-10. No. There’s no public record of anyone opposing the Parcel 19 Park-ette. Unfortunately, the urban oasis for children, seniors, and pets portrayed by the pretty watercolors will never materialize, because Columbus Center alone has 5 air pollution exhaust points.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Five-Pollution-Points.jpg

Q-11. Is there proof that the promised public parks are now private gardens?
A-11. Yes. In their 1,100-page, 99-year lease signed 2 May 2006, the new owners and MTA privatized 3 new parks totaling 37,350 s.f. This broken promise was questioned by the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, a statutory agency created by the legislature to review all air rights development contracts. In his 9 March 2006 response, MTA attorney Steven Charlip wrote to MHSAB, “All Columbus Center open space will remain in private ownership” and “the MTA will have no obligations related to parks.”
Columbus Center refers to the open space as “state parks for the public”; however, the condominium owners decide when, how, and to what extent they will open, close, secure, operate, and maintain their privately owned green spaces. Nothing prevents them from re-defining their private gardens and expenses in ways contrary to the standard definition of “public park.” The general public has no recourse.

Q-12. What was the bid process?
A-12. There was none. On 31 January 1997, MTA Chairman James Kerasiotes gave Columbus Center’s former owners a perpetual guarantee that: (1) they would face no competition; (2) if any competing proposal arose MTA would refuse it; (3) they would face no financial disclosure, and (4) they would pay only penny-on-the-dollar rent (about 1% of fair market value). The Framingham Service Plaza gas station and fast-food grill now pays MTA $12 million per year, but Columbus Center would pay only $12 million per century.

Q-13. Isn’t the 99-year lease less valuable than an outright sale?
A-13. No. On 6 March 2006, MTA purchased an independent, professional, fair-market-value property appraisal from Lincoln Property Company. On PDF page 96 of 120, appraiser Steven Foster wrote that the characteristics of the no-bid, no-disclosure, no-risk, sweetheart deal rendered any potential difference between the 99-year lease and an outright sale “negligible.”

Q-14. When did the former owners sell to the new owners?
A-14. The Columbus Center project and company were sold 1.5 years ago. Columbus Center was first proposed on 18 December 1996 by Boston-based Winn Development, which for the next 11 years used over fifty different names for the venture. On 15 March 2006, Winn sold out to a 3-tier California investor:

• owner: CalPERS (“California Public Employees Retirement System, A Component Unit of the State of California”)
• subsidiary: CUIP (California Urban Investment Partners, a wholly owned subsidiary of CalPERS)
• consultant: MacFarlane Urban Realty Company (hired by CalPERS to manage its CUIP investments)

CalPERS now has majority ownership and control. It was CalPERS that executed the 99-year lease with MTA. As a sub-contractor to CALPERS, Winn retains only a small share of profits and losses, and has no independent control.

In 2006, CalPERS committed $145 million to the project, but then wrote to Commonwealth officials that the project was insolvent without a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies. The new California owners want the Massachusetts public to subsidize both the costs and the profits for a project they now claim costs $800 million.

[TC]

Ned,

Impressive detail on your post, but have just a couple of questions.

1) What Law requires developers to improve air quality?

2) If air quality was such an issue how did the community let the project get approved w/o the new technology?

It seemed like people were more concerned about height than the real issues that could have been addressed. Also I could never figure out why the community let the project go forward with the open tracks on parcel 18. People should have been pushing for this to be covered in exchange for more height and overall square footage.

3) The 'new owners' you listed just like part of the overall financing package. (Retirement pensions are commonly used to fund development.) By this logic, I don't own my condo or my car. Until any loan is paid off the banks are going to be listed as owners.

[statler]

Again, welcome and thanks for presenting a thoughtful counterpoint on the site. I hope you stick around and comment in some of the other threads.

Two points:
PDF pages 1, 15, 17, 80, 83, 84, 90, and 91 in the Master Plan illustrate that whenever the Parcel 16 tower exceeds 150', there must be a single, contiguous, 2-acre public park to compensate.
As an urban activist, do you feel this is good urban design?
There is another member on the board (ablarc) who is constantly railing against 'planning by numbers'. This would be a perfect example of that. Does that area really need a two acre park to 'compensate'?
To me it just feels like 1950's era suburban design mentality. Let the city be a city.
While I understand your distress over broken promises, they are promises that probably should not have been demanded in the first place. Put parks where it is logical to put parks, not where it is mandated by some archaic, one-size-fits-all formula.

Second. The pollution issue is a tough one. I'm sure treating all that exhaust (ala Big Dig style) is hugely expensive and would most likely derail any funding the developers need to complete the project. Would you be ok with a local/state/federally subsidy to help defray those cost?

[Ron Newman]

I don't believe the Big Dig vent stacks contain any treatment at all.

[statler]

This is about all I could find on the Big Dig vent technology:

The project's ventilation is a two-way full transverse system in which fresh air is blown through ducts under the road or in a tunnel wall and circulated through the tunnels by fans in the vent buildings. Simultaneously, vehicle exhaust is extracted through openings in the ceiling to rooftop exhaust stacks in the vent buildings and then dispersed into the atmosphere. The highway tunnels' three fan/shaft ventilation systems use about 14 miles (22.5 kilometers) of duct work, 139 double-width centrifugal fans that are 10 feet (3 meters) in diameter, 35 jet fans, and 8 axial fans. Eleven of the project's ramp tunnels will use a jet-fan-based longitudinal/semi-transverse ventilation system.
Link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200305/ai_n9234085/pg_5)

[KentXie]

I just want to say, whether Columbus Center is built or not, the there will STILL be pollution going into the air from the Pike ANYWAYS. In other words, the neighborhood prefers a polluting canyon over a development that may not contain it but will provide jobs and housing? I don't get it.

[Ned Flaherty]

In reply to Statler and TC...

Q-15. How did the community let the project get approved with 7 open railways, and without new air pollution technology?
A-15. No one “let” approval happen. In 1997, Mayor Menino signed a legal agreement that let this developer dictate who the Mayor could appoint to his own advisory committee. Menino gave 7 seats to the development team, but only 4 seats to democratically nominated delegates from the affected communities. On every issue, the 7 members sitting in seats owned by MTA, BRA, and Columbus Center voted for developer profit over public health. The 4 members nominated by the public were always out-numbered, so the public never had a chance.

Q-16. Did people push for more density to pay for for full railway enclosure and air cleansing?
A-16. Yes. Citizens worked for years to get full railway enclosure and air cleansing, but the developer’s lawyers vigorously fought every attempt to publicly audit the actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies per the rules of GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards). When the developer labeled full enclosure and cleaning as “impossible,” the public debate among citizens, government, and media couldn’t even get started. The only people to ever see the actual financials are those whose work was funded by the developer, and who signed gag orders to stay silent.

Q-17. Wasn’t air quality an issue?
A-17. Yes. It always was and still is an issue; however, Columbus Center withheld the MTA vent study for years, and released it only after the public hearings ended, thereby preventing public debate. The public couldn’t argue about data that it didn’t yet have.

Q-18. What law requires developers to improve air quality?
A-18. State and federal agencies generally prohibit air quality from getting worse, but no law requires that it be improved. In vented neighborhoods, air quality would needlessly worsen if concentrated air pollution is pumped through each of the 12 mechanized exhaust vents.

Q-19. Is air cleansing an appropriate use of public subsidy?
A-19. Yes. But government must design, build, own, operate, maintain, and insure the cleansing system. The current developers are allowed to sell and run at any moment (even before construction finishes), but the public transportation corridor and its potential pollution will continue; therefore, citizens need a public entity to ensure permanent air cleansing. One of the best reasons for air rights development is it creates the opportunity to enclose and cleanse the air pollution generated by the transportation corridor.

Q-20. Is trading density for parks good urban design?
A-20. Yes. Financial reality (“planning by numbers”) is inescapable, so the Master Plan authors and most citizens still feel it’s a fair trade to use the profits from excess density to create a “substantial” public open space (Master Plan, PDF page 84) that is publicly owned, operated, and maintained. The only urban public property available to create substantial public open space in Boston is in air rights, so it has to be either there or nowhere. Unfortunately, Columbus Center kept the ≈300% density, but deleted the 2-acre park and replaced it with a 633-car garage.

Q-21. Aren’t the new owners merely silent financiers, like the bank that owns my car until I finish repaying the loan?
A-21. No. The new owners control all decisions, and hired heir own private real estate firm to manage the Columbus Center company and the project in a very hands-on manner. The CalPERS-CUIP- MacFarlane contract requires constant reports on engineering, finance, management, politics, and marketing. Your car loan financier doesn’t schedule your oil changes, check your brakes, enforce speed limits, or choose your passengers, but the CalPERS team is doing the exact equivalent at Columbus Center.

[Ron Newman]

Does this area need a 'substantial' open space, when Copley Square is just blocks away?

[czsz]

Ned's arguments all appear to be holding the developers to account for promises made solely to pacify NIMBYs' concerns in the first place. The project doesn't need to improve Boston's air quality or provide a linear park over a sequence of squares in order to meet the threshhold of providing a utilitarian benefit to the city as a whole.