Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

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

The default notice initiates a 30-day period during which Winn and Calpers can devise a plan to begin construction. If they don?t, or the new plan isn?t satisfactory to state officials, they will lose their lease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/10/down_to_its_last_chance?mode=PF

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Columbus Center plan on the ropes[/size]
One of the most ambitious development proposals in Boston history may be history.



[size=+2]Down to its last chance

Developers? delays and funding woes spur the state to serve notice on Columbus Center, the $800m complex planned to span the Pike[/size]

By Casey Ross ? Globe Staff ? February 10, 2010

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

A rendering of the Columbus Center highlights the ambition of the plan. Some urge a smaller-scale complex.

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

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

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

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

The default notice initiates a 30-day period during which Winn and Calpers can devise a plan to begin construction. If they don?t, or the new plan isn?t satisfactory to state officials, they will lose their lease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[ablarc]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[palindrome]

Re: Columbus Center

time to shit or get off the pot.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

I posted the full article as published by the Boston Globe in both the hard-copy broadsheet and the web site, whereas you omitted 6 of the story?s key components: the sub-headline, photograph, caption #1, rendering, caption #2, and the crucial 10-year time line. Your post doesn?t indicate that these 6 parts are missing, so readers of your post think that they saw the whole story, and think that there?s no need to click the link. Only readers of my post are guaranteed to see the entire story.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

I posted the full article as published by the Boston Globe in both the hard-copy broadsheet and the web site, whereas you omitted 6 of the story?s key components: the sub-headline, photograph, caption #1, rendering, caption #2, and the crucial 10-year time line. Your post doesn?t indicate that these 6 parts are missing, so readers of your post think that they saw the whole story, and think that there?s no need to click the link. Only readers of my post are guaranteed to see the entire story.

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

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

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

 

[Shepard]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[czsz]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: Columbus Center

R.I.P.

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

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

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

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

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

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Columbus Center

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

 

[ablarc]

Re: Columbus Center

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

The truth unvarnished.

Who can deny this?

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

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

Indeed.

Could we have something like this, please?

 

[Boston02124]

Re: Columbus Center

Is that Chicago or Oaklahoma city?