Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned,
You may call me statler. Formalities are not required in internet forums. Standard netiquette. If you feel they are necessary, that is fine, but they can make others (including myself) uncomfortable.
Good grammar, spelling and politeness is, however, always welcome. So I thank you for that.

Thank you for all the information regarding the public process. I will respond to your points in time, for now allow to address this one point:

Reviving old posts from a similar forum adds little to what?s already here. And while there?s no evidence that forum members will read media coverage starting in 1996, if you do post such material, then fairness requires that you include all 805 articles.

Which 805 articles are you referring to?
I am attempting (though I may not finish) to post what I can find regrading this project on the internet. The first article I can find in the Globe archive is the 2001 Air Rights Parcel Meeting Scheduled that I have posted above.
That was found through a simple search on Boston.com.
Unfortunately, I have no access to Nexus/Lexus or any similar service. And at any rate I'm not sure I have time or energy to post all articles regarding this project, nor am I sure it is the best use of the forum space. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

For now, I wish to thank you for your postings despite the attacks against your person and firmly held beliefs. I truly hope you will continue to post. In fact, I'd love to see your opinions on the 100's of other projects ongoing throughout the city that we discuss here.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Open process for master planning ? There is no such thing as an urban master planning process that is open only to abutters; master planning, by definition, considers all voices. All opinions were considered equally during creation of the Turnpike Master Plan; most of the better ideas survived, most of the lesser ones didn?t. The process was open to the entire public. No credentials were required, no voter-ID checks were conducted, there were no residence requirements. Anyone from out of town, state, or country was allowed to attend. Each participant list was published. Each participant was allowed to ask multiple questions and make multiple recommendations.

This is good to know. Sounds like a fair system. It would work better if the general public was more informed about urban design. But then again our political system would work a lot better if the public were more informed about current events too.
Maybe Death and Life of Great American Cities should be required reading in school?

Adoption and usage ? After 125 meetings held 1997-2000, the Turnpike Master Plan was published on 28 June 2000, and adopted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority that December. Each parcel that is proposed for development undergoes an individual public process of written proposals, public hearings, Q&A sessions, comment periods, and impact reports.

Wow. That is a lot of meetings. Was new ground covered in each meeting? Who has time to go to 125 meetings in a three year period? That is a lot to ask of even the most strident city activist.

Columbus Center process ? Naturally, Columbus Center?s owners, architects, and vendors took copious notes as the Plan evolved, and argued for everything that could boost their clients? profit, especially at public expense. The most bold-faced, bald-faced, self-serving of those ideas were discarded, though some of the better disguised ones slipped in, e.g., developers can still request that any requirement be waived, using an excuse of ?financial hardship? that need not be proven.

This, of course, is all opinion and hearsay, and you are entitled to it but it does nothing to sway my opinion of this project.

Columbus Center was first proposed in 1996. The Turnpike Master Plan was published in 1997. Most of Columbus Center?s several hundred public hearings were held 2000 - 2003, with about another hundred government meetings 2004-2008.

Again, that is a lot of meetings.

Going Forward ? The Plan itself is unlikely to ever be amended. But citizens in a democracy can ask elected officials to hold public hearings at any time, on any topic, for any purpose. A public groundswell usually forces politicians to hold more hearings, and because of widespread public outrage since 2005, democracy has already prevailed. Consequently, 75% of our state legislators have notified fellow legislators, state agencies, and Governor Patrick that there is no valid excuse to waste Massachusetts public subsidy dollars paying the costs and profits of California?s proposal, particularly since the written proposal promised to use no public funds, and California?s own subsidy applications show that revenues and profits rose farther and faster than costs.

So a similar groundswell uprising demanding the city be made whole and the urban fabric knitted back together can in fact happen. Good to know.

Architects versus abutters ? Columbus Center had hundreds of public hearings, attended by about one thousand different individuals, including democratically elected officials of organizations representing thousands more. Your statement ?we [architects] outnumber them [abutters]? is untrue. The obvious arithmetical impossibilities are similar to California?s claim that 443 condominiums and 162 hotel rooms create 7,487 new, permanent, full-time jobs.

I am not an architect. By 'we' I simply meant concerned citizens who want to see the city made whole and urban fabric knitted.
Jane Jacobs was not an architect either. Nor is Howard Kunstler. I firmly hold to my belief there are thousand of unheard voices in this city that want see a truly urban future for this city.

Blame for failure ? California?s Columbus Center demise can?t be blamed on its closest neighbors, because the most serious public issues still are: the no-bid proposal, no financial disclosure, violations of the Turnpike Master Plan, and massive subsidies for a project proposed as subsidy-free. Those are public concerns, shared by citizens from all over Boston, throughout government, and across the state.

Competent development teams face, address, and intelligently overcome such obstacles; only amateurs try to secretly evade them, and then get caught at it.

I'll agree that Winn may not have been the most competent developer for this project. I wonder how a Trump or Hines could have handled things differently.

A truce would serve everyone?s interests. ? Architects who reduce public process to a we-versus-them mentality do a disservice to themselves, their training, their profession, and society. True civic engagement is not a snowball fight or a shouting match, won by the largest, loudest labor union; it is an intelligent conversation, guided by good urban planning, about all the ultimate impacts.

Again I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am an architect.
Good urban planning is subjective but the key word is urban. Look to good urban spaces for guidance. Most of them can be found in Europe. Don't try to copy them like for like though. Berlin is different from London is different from Paris is different from Prague. There are some commonality amongst them (and New York, and San Fran and Chicago and even parts of Boston). Those are the things you try to emulate. Think density and how open space is planned and used.

Forum members would be wise to abandon the simplistic, childish architects-versus-abutters theme, including the grade-school tactic of name-calling everyone with a contrasting opinion.

Agreed.

Arguments to ?build everything, everywhere, all the time, right now, regardless? are voiced mainly by people who are profiting ? or hoping to profit ? from the development gravy train. Not every architect is such a lobbyist, but those who insist upon this architects-versus-abutters idea just perpetuate that stereotype.

Agreed.

Architects often dismiss concerned citizens merely as selfish neighbors just trying to protect their property.

That is because they often are.

But simplistic stereotypes work both ways, so the public often dismisses concerned architects as selfish workers just trying to increase their wages.

That is because they often are.

Both classifications are unfair,

Not really

but architects who follow the architects-versus-abutters mentality perpetuate both stereotypes, which is everyone?s loss.

Agreed, but these problems still exist and they still lead to mediocre (at best) urban design.

Ideally, people who really, truly and honestly care about the city they live and work in and want to be a part of the process that shapes it will learn about the history, theories and ideas that go behind that process.
They will read Jane Jacobs, visit Europe, take a course or two in real estate development to understand how these systems work. Instead, most people involved in this process are only looking out for their own best interest. This is what I am fighting against. And it applies equally to developers and neighborhood groups. One of the most common complaints on this forum is the use of pre-cast panels. They are horrible, tacky and cheap. And mostly used by developers looking to save a buck. The second biggest gripe on this forum is against those who complain about shadow and open space requirement. These people are looking to build a little slice of suburbia within an urban environment.

I'm an altruistic guy. I could not care less if every developer & architect goes broke building this city, nor do I care who's view is blocked or has to deal with shadows, just so long as the end result is a truly urban space that can be enjoyed by everybody.

And I'll fight anything that impedes that process.

 

[PaulC]

Re: Columbus Center

I always thought that this project could have been better. Now that it may be canceled there is a chance the new developer will be better. The fact that this parcel was never put out to bid has always bothered me. Next time maybe the turnpike authority can get a higher price.

The electric wires for the Acela were brand new so from the begining there was no chance of lowering them and covering there space. Now maybe the next developer will.

I also wonder if with all the development in the area, the developer may be getting cold feet. If he waits a few years all the units under construction and the two planned will have been absorbed.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Statler,

Among the 15,000 pages of public records for Columbus Center, there are at least 805 news articles. But the Internet will only give you a small fraction of the total news coverage, because: (1) some articles were never on-line; (2) some were initially on-line but later deleted; (3) even the articles still available on-line usually omit the photos, drawings, charts and tables.

For example: the article you just posted originally contained informative graphics ? omitted from your post ? that showed all revenue coming from 100% private sales, and zero revenue from public subsidies. Therefore, the article does constitute a promise not to use subsidies; it merely repeats the zero-subsidy promise pulled straight from Columbus Center?s approved proposal.

Because Columbus Center remains the most data-intensive proposal Boston has ever seen, there?s little time for studying other projects; however, my core principles remain the same for all projects:

1. First, create a city-wide, publicly prepared master plan and zoning.
2. Require compliance.
3. Conduct only competitive bidding.
4. Require full financial disclosure using government accounting standards.
5. Seat only democratically nominated members to review committees.
6. Never use public subsidies to pay for private costs and profits.

But since you asked, I do have one opinion that applies to projects city-wide: UFP air pollution, being the most serious urban public health problem worldwide, can and must be halted. The harm is well documented, the technology exists, and the mitigation cost is a bargain compared to the total cost of illness, lost wages, hospitalization, and early death.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

The electric wires for the Acela were brand new so from the begining there was no chance of lowering them and covering there space. Now maybe the next developer will.

Reducing Amtrak's ability to run double-decker equipment in the future would not be a good trade-off for this project.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Columbus Center

Reducing Amtrak's ability to run double-decker equipment in the future would not be a good trade-off for this project.

Also this is an area that will need to be torn up if the NS Link ever gets built; constructing a tower and townhouses over the rails will impede that. Though, unfortunately, foresight doesn't seem to be a quality that many politicians and planners have in Boston.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

About those 7 exposed rail lanes ? Over 13 years, no one ever recommended impeding city, state, or national rail service. The public consensus always was to totally enclose 7 rail lanes and 8 road lanes in tunnels, suppress the noise, and treat the air pollution.

That approach was always technically possible, but the project owners chose to leave the 7 rail lanes permanently exposed.

They tried to blame their decision on Amtrak, but the 7-exposed-rail-lanes design is not required by ? or the fault of ? any railway; it was driven entirely by the developer?s goal: ?earn maximum rapid profit at public expense.?

No technical issue prevents creating buildings above, putting tunnels below, preserving the railways? flexibility, and handling the UFP air pollution.

 

[Scott]

Re: Columbus Center

True civic engagement is not a snowball fight or a shouting match, won by the largest, loudest labor union; it is an intelligent conversation, guided by good urban planning, about all the ultimate impacts.

Good one Ned! Way to go with the union bashing!

I've been to quite a few meetings on different developments and have heard a lot of yelling but never from anyone who represented a trade union.

You seem to imply that people are shooting from the hip but we cannot ask for civility and factual opinions from people on this forum when you are bashing other people (union members, myself) and not accepting that their voice is just as legitimate as yours.

 

[PaulC]

Re: Columbus Center

Reducing Amtrak's ability to run double-decker equipment in the future would not be a good trade-off for this project.

Does amtrak ever plan to run double deckers, wouldn't there have to be a massive rebuild all along the route? At least if they left the wires where they are they could still cover and build over them. This would help reduce noise and controll polution.

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

Hi Ned --

I've read your posts with interest over the past several days, as well as those you've left here in the past. The level of detail of your posts and your commitment to addressing the issues that concern you are both pretty impressive.

As a resident of East Boston, the concerns you expressed below are of great interest to me, and many of my neighbors:

But since you asked, I do have one opinion that applies to projects city-wide: UFP air pollution, being the most serious urban public health problem worldwide, can and must be halted. The harm is well documented, the technology exists, and the mitigation cost is a bargain compared to the total cost of illness, lost wages, hospitalization, and early death.

May I ask your opinion on the imminent construction of the Centerfield Taxiway at Logan Airport? As I'm sure you know, jet operations create tons of UFP. With an increase in capacity at Logan, many of those airplanes will fly right over your home. Were you an opponent of this project?

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

I don't know what Amtrak's future plans are, but the T already runs (non-electric) double-deckers, and the wires have to be high enough to clear them.

The real solution to diesel pollution is to electrify the MBTA commuter rail.

 

[InTheHood]

Re: Columbus Center

Columbus Center to me is an example of why we need a streamlined review process that allows neighbors some meaningful input to shape major projects but also encourages structured input from committed urbanists from the region as a whole, and involves independent persons who have some amount of background in the relevant subject matter. (This isn't meant to be intended to be elitist, but frankly, someone who has studied urban planning or architecture, or a civil engineer, or someone who has been involved in real estate financing can bring something to the conversation that the average citizen cannot).

I can understand frustration about these air rights not being put out for bid, and I can understand the reluctance of many on this Board to see public funds advanced for this project - on the logic that we have higher priorities for scarce resources.

However, speaking as someone who attended many of the endless string of Columbus Center meetings, I also have an appreciation of the absurdity of the public process - and therefore sympathy for the role the mayor and others played in favoring Winn/Cassin and trying to push CC. And personally I'm not opposed to some degree of public subsidy for covering the Pike as a public benefit.

What was missing from the discussion in the endless Columbus Center meetings was a dose of economic reality. Developers are obviously out to make a buck, so no one trusted their data; there was likewise widespread distrust (understandable) of data presented by the BRA. On the other side, a majority of residents have absolutely no clue about project financing or risk. Much time was wasted arguing over what was "an acceptable return" and pushing developers to adhere strictly to the letter of a well-intentioned "master plan" that (sadly) wasn't and isn't economically viable. There was also pressure for developers to disclose data and projections that no profit-making entity could reasonably be expected to share.

The basic trade-off in any air rights project (it's as true for the Rosenthal project at Kenmore Square as it is for CC) is to provide some sort of "extra" economic benefit to the developer in return for the developer agreeing to pick up the added cost of covering a meaningful swath of the highway and provide other amenities. In the case of CC, the "benefits" to the developer included 1) a no-bid process, thereby saving big $ and reducing risk 2) a tacit understanding that the mayor supported the project and would use his influence to shape the opinion of the CAC 3) a cut-rate lease for the air rights themselves and not least 4) the ability to build taller and denser than the zoning in adjoining neighborhoods would otherwise allow (technically the highway itself wasn't addressed by zoning). As time has dragged on, steel costs have soared, financing markets have tanked, and the condo market has softened, leading the developer to come back and request 5) some public subsidy $$ - which actually are not massive in the context of the cost of this entire project, which runs to hundreds of millions.

We should encourage broad participation on this board, and I for one will try to be a bit less snarky in future posts. But some of this is a rehash of urban legends that helped make the public process so tedious. We can't wish away the expense of decking four Pike parcels, and we needn't waste our time looking for a conspiracy in the tree of corporate ownership or assuming that every supporter was paid off by the developer. The fact that the developer didn't have to bid to get started and got some degree of help from the Mayor's office during the lengthy public process is also now irrelevant. I'm quite confident that Winn/Cassin, CalPERS, and other LPs would be willing to sell the "as approved" right to build CC to some other developer. They are just trying to make money, and at this point their focus may simply be on recovering sunk costs.

The gist of the argument during the public process, taking the most sympathetic perspective (i.e., discounting the probability that neighbors were mainly concerned about their sightlines, a sentiment voiced at early meetings):

Opponents: "We wish this project had less height and density and had more amenities, such as bigger parks that covered the rail tracks entirely. We believe that the developer stands to make windfall profits and we believe that if this project were put out to bid and forced to stick to the master plan, we'd end up with a better project"

Supporters: "This looks pretty good to us. We believe that the developer isn't bluffing when he contends that adhering to the letter of the master plan wouldn't be economic, and we would much rather have this project than a 'no build.'"

On the fundamental economic disagreement, I believe that the subsequent project history favors the viewpoint of supporters. If there was any windfall here, Winn/Cassin would already be counting their money.

The question to Mr. Flaherty, which I have posed earlier on this Board and now repeat is: would you rather have CC as proposed or a "no build"?

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Does amtrak ever plan to run double deckers, wouldn't there have to be a massive rebuild all along the route? At least if they left the wires where they are they could still cover and build over them. This would help reduce noise and controll polution.

The catenary height is pretty much fixed, although there is a bit of vertical play in the pantographs (the contraption that pulls juice from the wire).

AMTRAK will not run double-deckers (Superliners) on the Northeast Corridor because there is insufficient clearance in the tunnels elsewhere, and in several spots, the catenary is too low.

The seven tracks at the east portal of Back Bay station consist of two Orange Line tracks (no catenary); two MBTA commuter rail tracks, no catenary; and three AMTRAK/MBTA tracks, which are electrified.

AMTRAK's electric motors are quiet and clean compared to the MBTA diesels. The four tracks without catenary are those closest to the MassPike.

They have built over the catenary within Back Bay station, and pretty much the whole width of Manhattan.

 

[jass]

Re: Columbus Center

If Paris (and many others) can run electrified double-deckers in very old tunnels and on all lines, I dont see why Amtrak can't.

Unless Amtrak is run by even slower people than we think, the wire had to have been installed to allow full size trains. I understand that perhaps theres a 100 year old low clearance tunnel or two in Connecticut which has lower wiring, but this should be very local issues.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

InTheHood,

You didn?t go by ?InTheHood? at the public hearings, so please disclose your name, and especially your affiliations.

Schedule ? Once again, for everyone who complains about the endless public process, the Mayor gave up all control over the schedule. It was the developers who rented the auditorium, bought the milk and cookies, set the schedule, hired the secret audio recording technicians and equipment, and controlled the agenda. The frequency, quantity, and length of meetings was all the developer?s doing, and can?t be blamed on the oft-maligned public process or on citizens, who were powerless once the Mayor sold us out.

No subsidies versus many subsidies ? Many people may favor subsidizing one thing or another, but that?s not the issue. For years, the overwhelming issue has been that the developers proposed to use no subsidies, and when caught grasping at 15 subsidies, admitted that maximum subsidy was their business plan ?from the get-go? (their own words, Boston Globe, on 30 June 2006).

If society condones developers saying one thing and doing the opposite, then all accountability is lost and public process isn?t even necessary. But to have accountability, developers must either do what they propose, or else re-propose. California?s Columbus Center refuses to do either.

Developers created public mistrust by keeping finances secret. ? It wasn?t the developer?s desire to earn profit that caused mistrust; no one ever objected to that.

The developers claimed that every controversial issue was caused by finances, but refused to prove those problems or allow a government audit of expenses, revenues, profits, and subsidies. After claiming for years that there was no accounting sleight-of-hand, they later admitted under pressure that disclosing the way they ?organize and crank numbers would be like revealing the Coca-Cola formula? (?Developers decry data disclosure,? Boston Globe, 16 May 2003). The developers created public mistrust with their Enron-style cranking: ?The problems are all in our finances, but no one can see our books.?

Even today, after 13 years, no one can truthfully say that the Turnpike Master Plan is or isn?t economically viable, because no one ever audited California?s Columbus Center numbers. A government audit would prove that the numbers either work or they don?t, and why.

California now hopes that by taking their toys and leaving, they can intimidate Massachusetts into approving 9 more subsidies. Most businesses would relish the chance to throw a tantrum, pout at home for a while, and then pick up a check for $116 million. Stay tuned.

What to do next ? Thankfully, no one needs to make an all-or-nothing decision between ?Columbus Center as proposed? vs. ?nothing at all.? The developers often tried that ploy, but people weren?t persuaded. They knew that no one should fall for the question when it?s put that way, because three other choices exist, too:

■ Columbus Center as designed, with substantiating financial disclosure
■ Columbus Center re-designed, with substantiating financial disclosure
■ another developer?s master-plan-compliant proposal, with substantiating financial disclosure

The turnpike reserved this property for Columbus Center in perpetuity, with no fair market value rent over the last 13 years. That agreement forbade the consideration of any other proposals.

After 13 years, it now is time to see what the rest of the industry would propose.

 

[Suffolk 83]

Re: Columbus Center

I do not understand why this question is relevant to the project.

^^ It's not. People are just upset about the failure of this project and are lashing out with personal attacks.

Nature of the internet I suppose.

My topics are numbered for easy reference, which has proven helpful to grateful forum members who were unaware that the answer they seek is already on file.

My post this morning before the hundred other ones wasn't a personal attack on Ned Flaherty at all, it was a question that I think is fair to ask. I know nothing about Mr. Flaherty and it struck me as odd that someone would be awake at 4 am. To me that raised a credability issue as far as this man could just be some crazy senior citizen hell bent on derailing a project near his home. Generally, I tend to take a person who has a regular job and responsibilities more seriously than I do someone who doesn't. If this project is the only thing on the man's plate 24/7, that raises a few questions.

The question about the numbered questions is also, I feel, a valid query. Why would you number questions, when each post is already numbered, making it easy for one to reference already. A person can do very subtle things to make themselves appear to be "official" like this, and people will automatically buy into it because, hey this guy must be serious, he numbered his questions.
I actually don't care about this project all that much, so in no way was this a personal attack on Mr. Flaherty. Just curiosity about a couple peculiar things.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Schedule ? Once again, for everyone who complains about the endless public process, the Mayor gave up all control over the schedule. It was the developers who rented the auditorium, bought the milk and cookies, set the schedule, hired the secret audio recording technicians and equipment, and controlled the agenda. The frequency, quantity, and length of meetings was all the developer?s doing, and can?t be blamed on the oft-maligned public process or on citizens, who were powerless once the Mayor sold us out.

I'm not doubting your recounting of events here, but I can't for the life of me see the benefit the developer would get by stretching this process out over 7+ years and hundreds upon hundreds of meetings.

But if you said they, then they did. Any theories why?

And for the record, so far you have laid every failure of this project at the feet of the developer (or someone 'in the developers' pocket'.)
For someone who wishes to end the 'us v them' dichotomy you haven't really gone out of your way to point out any flaws in the neighborhood's approach to this project.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Would someone please alert me when this circle-jerk is over?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Statler,

There are 3 time lines, all 100% under the developer?s control:

1. before public hearings: 1996 - 2000
2. during public hearings: 2001-2003
3. after public hearings: 2004-2008

The developers never explained how 10 years evaporated during time lines 1 and 3. But the hundreds of meetings during time line 2 were used to reduce public participation. Most meetings were re-runs of others, and the burning issues were usually postponed, but rarely addressed, which proved to the public that there was little reason to participate.

Despite that treatment, the adjacent communities worked very hard, even going so far as to submit for consideration an alternative proposal entitled the ?Shared Vision.?

Developer response: ?The only one of the 4 proposals that will ever work in our secret financial system is the one that we wanted all along. Yours won?t work. Because of financial problems. Which we won?t show you. ?

If the public had done 4 things better . . .

1. Insist on a democratically composed review committee.
2. Insist on competitive bidding.
3. Insist on full financial disclosure.
4. Insist on master plan compliance.

. . . the initial developer would have either succeeded or failed long ago, and either Columbus Center or else a more successful proposal would already be built and operational.

 

[tommym96]

Re: Columbus Center

Would someone please alert me when this circle-jerk is over?

co-sign