Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[kz1000ps]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

 

[whighlander]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Westy

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Gov. snubs Columbus Center[/size]
Thomas Grillo ● Banker & Tradesman ● 14 July 2008

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

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Watching What We Breathe[/size]

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

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

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

That?s about to change, though, as Tufts researchers team up with five Boston-area community groups to find the answer, aided by a five-year, $2.5 million grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science. The scientists will focus on Somerville, Mass. [I-93], Boston?s Chinatown [I-90 from Columbus Center to I-93], and two other communities that will be chosen soon.

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

Photo: Perry Kroll/iStock

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

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

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

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

As part of the study, participants will be asked to submit blood samples to be tested for evidence of heart and lung disease. ?Many people live close to I-93 and I-95, and they may well be exposed to these tiny particles, but they aren?t aware of it,? says Bart Laws, senior investigator at the Latin American Health Institute, another of the participating groups. ?The particles are invisible and odorless.?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

Funding doesn?t just eventually ?come through? as if from a slot machine on which someone pulls the lever long and hard enough. Funding comes from people who are willing to temporarily part with their money because their research demonstrates that they?ll earn a good profit quickly.

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

From those same four sources, Columbus Center either lost all of its tentatively approved funding, or else never even got the hoped for funding to begin with. The project is inactive today because it has no money to spend. And the former owners and current owners won?t give it any more cash.

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Pike?s projects stall[/size]

Real estate sales no cure for looming deficit ● Deals won?t plug Pike deficit

By Scott Van Voorhis ● July 14, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

?No one can afford to build the decks,? said downtown tower developer Dean Stratouly. ?You can?t pay for air-rights and then have to create them.?

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

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

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

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Columbus Center did have funding but then it got pulled

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

. . . UFPs exist near major highways with or without air rights development . . . Columbus Center will have no effect on the UFPs being emitted . . .

That also is untrue. Again, re-read the public records.

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

This is public information.

The details are covered more comprehensively in earlier posts.

. . . why don't you move?

I won?t move because it?s more important to stay and work toward a better outcome than it is to leave and let that worse outcome occur.

I also won?t move because I don?t have to.

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

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

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

Rosenthal plans his entire One Kenmore proposal to meet the principles I listed above. And he saw what happened when Columbus Center didn?t meet those principles. So let?s hope for the best. Proposal is expected in the fall.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

So, how are these projects vastly different?

 

[Cojapo]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

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

Law of physics: gas expands to fill a void.

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

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