Wow ... I neglect the board for a couple of weeks and look what happens!
While I'm glad to see some good debate on the board, and I welcome Ned's contribution to that, I do think that Ned's series of posts reflect pretty well the exasperatingly inflexible position of the NIMBY opposition to this project during the agonizingly long public process (which, incidentally, certainly was not the process the developer wanted!)
In addition to instances of opinion voiced as fact, Ned is also guilty of at least one instance of complete fabrication voiced as fact, to wit:
****
Q-25. Does the 7-acre tunnel / deck / basement cost more than land-based construction?
A-25. No. Three separate, professional organizations estimated the tunnel / deck / basement cost:
? $31 million per Hanscomb cost estimators (4 April 2002)
? $12 million per Columbus Center?s new owners (22 February 2006)
? $37 million per Lincoln Property fair-market-value appraisers (6 March 2006)
With a tunnel / deck / basement cost of $1.7 ? $5.3 million per acre, air rights construction appears equal to or less than land-based construction, including the average costs and/or savings from demolition, excavation, contamination, groundwater remediation, labor, and materials.
Q-26. Is there a ?deck cost premium??
A-26. No. The Master Plan does allow excess density as a way to pay for only those tunnel / deck / basement costs that exceed the equivalent land-based costs; however, no such premium was ever proved. With air rights construction costing equal to or less than land-based construction, there is no ?deck cost premium? that could justify excess density.
***
This is utter rubbish, and this unwillingness to face facts allows the NIMBY crowd to duck the question of difficult trade-offs, as Ned has done again above. (It all costs the same, so we let's pretend we can cost effectively build a 3 story building over the Pike!)
I'll assert as fact: building over a highway costs a helluva lot more than building on a typical ground site, and citing outdated, erroneous, and laughably imprecise apples-and-oranges "estimates" of build costs doesn't do anything to change that fact. It ought to be bloody obvious to everyone that if building over an interstate wasn't damned expensive, then highways at or below grade would be built over in every high-value urban environment. Certainly the entire length of the FDR Drive would already be covered. But if anecdotal evidence won't suffice, I'll invite Ned to find any reputable Civil Engineer to agree with his statement above. (Note, this is not the same as taking a 2002 cost estimate from one source and comparing it to a 2007 cost estimate from another source). Indeed, to make it apples-to-apples, let's make this an open invitation to any reputable civil engineer who is willing to say that the PSF cost of a building Columbus Center, absent some sort of subsidy, is less than or equal to the PSF cost to build the Clarendon, one block away.
As for CC itself, it seems to be dead. The reason it is dead is that despite support from the Mayor and lukewarm support or indifference from the majority of neighbors (immediate abutters excepted) and despite some amount of favoritism in the process and some (to date rather minor) subsidies the damned thing still can't be built profitably. Put a fork in it. Ned, you can relax, the trench is safe, and so are the views across it.
As for the "windfall" for the developer that you and others complained about during those agonizing meetings several years back, well, where is it? If the deal was such a massive, crooked hand-out, why wasn't the opportunity seized when the approvals were all in hand and the market was as hot as it's ever been?
It's OK to favor the trench to CC. I disagree, but I understand. I just challenge you to be honest about it.
