Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Statler - The developers of Columbus Center didn't "fail" they just ran into bad market timing.

There's a lot of debate here on this project, and that's great, but the reality is that the NIMBYs tried to stop the project and they failed. The project moves forward. Now the market timing is off, so they'll wait and build when the capital markets loosen. The proposed 18 month delay has nothing to do with the barking wackos, the project has been approved with huge and widespread public support. Everyone in the city knows what a fantastic project this is, and everyone wants it built - except maybe a handful of "those types" and we'll always have "those types" on any development. Right now, it's just a capital markets issue.
 
Re: Columbus Center

pelhamhall said:
Statler - The developers of Columbus Center didn't "fail" they just ran into bad market timing.

There's a lot of debate here on this project, and that's great, but the reality is that the NIMBYs tried to stop the project and they failed. The project moves forward. Now the market timing is off, so they'll wait and build when the capital markets loosen. The proposed 18 month delay has nothing to do with the barking wackos, the project has been approved with huge and widespread public support. Everyone in the city knows what a fantastic project this is, and everyone wants it built - except maybe a handful of "those types" and we'll always have "those types" on any development. Right now, it's just a capital markets issue.
Click to expand...

I agree. "Right now" they are running into capital issues. But how long has this been going through the public process? It hasn't all been financing problems. If they were at a point 2-3 years ago where they could have started the funding process, they (I assume) would have had more success. I'm not even concerned about the nay-sayers because from what I understand it has had mostly strong support throughout the process. It's the process itself (or Winn's inability to get this project through that process quickly enough) that dragged this project into this economic climate and caused it to miss the last cycle.
The question is, could anyone have been able to get this project through the current process in a timely manner?
Judging by the lack of complex developments like this built in the past twenty years, I'd say no.
 
Re: Columbus Center

[Edited]

Exactly, the project is in mothballs due to funding.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

statler said:
I think we agree on the main cause of the failure of Columbus Center - the public process.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely. The Columbus Center developers controlled every aspect of the "public" process. They had no competitors; they did not have to disclose their financials; they controlled the meetings; they picked their own advisory committe members; they were allowed to violate the Master Plan. See Ned Flaherty's South End editorial from last week (already posted on this forum) and you'll see even more ways in which this whole process was controlled and dictated by the developers.

Taking all of this into account, there is even LESS of an excuse for Columbus Center failing. This project has imploded upon itself despite all the factors going in the favor of the developers none of them going in favor of the public, so its failure cannot be blamed on public process.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

I thinks politics has a lot to do with it. Look how quickly the Filene's and Lansdowne projects went through and Seaport Sq is moving at an incredible pace.
 
Re: Columbus Center

There's no doubt Winn bungled the process as well. They are not a group that has a history of projects like this and they stumbled along to the finish line.

They tried too hard to accommodate too many people. The ground-water restoration program blackmail that the Bay Village residents pulled was unprecedented in the history of the city - Winn should not have patronized this issue. Regardless, I hope you're not using some computer consultant's rant in the South End "News" as an information source.

The big picture, which I keep harping on, is that this project has wide-spread support from across the city. Everyone wants it built, it's approved and ready and will begin soaring and casting it's glorious shadows as soon as the capital markets loosen.
 
Re: Columbus Center

what's wrong with ground-water restoration? Surely it is preferable to having to shore up Bay Village and South End houses several decades from now because their pilings have become dry.
 
Re: Columbus Center

pelhamhall said:
. . . this project has wide-spread support from across the city. Everyone wants it built, it's approved and ready. . . as soon as the capital markets loosen.
Click to expand...
No, Pelhamhall.

If you object to ?rants? then consider your own:

Firstly, you wrote that there is ?widespread? support. That is untrue. The two largest adjacent communities have been on record for over six years as officially opposing the current proposal, along with most community organizations. Several city councilors, and three of our four state legislators agree.

Secondly, you wrote that this project is ?approved.? That also is untrue. It never had all of its nearly 100 approvals. It did get two major approvals from two of its own business partners (MTA and BRA) in 2003, but it never got all approvals, including major ones.

●1. MTA never granted permission to start the buildings.
●2. MTA withdrew permission to start the tunnels.
●3. MTA canceled the lease amendment, throwing California back into its long-running two-year default.
●4. No bank ever loaned any construction money.
●5. Federal officials twice denied $59 million in tax credits.
●6. Governor Patrick recently withdrew two major grants.
●7. MHFA recently withdrew two major loans.
●8. The other 5 state-level subsidies, likewise, became ineligible.

Thirdly, you wrote that ?everyone? wants the current proposal built. That is untrue. Thousands of citizens, across Boston and outside, continue to oppose it, because it was proposed as subsidy-free and California later admitted that it will die unless the public doesn?t pay its costs and profits.

Fourth, you wrote that it is ?ready.? That is untrue. Across 13 years, no commercial bank ever loaned even one dollar of the money needed to build this. With state and federal support denied or withdrawn, the proposal now is farther below industry lending standards than it ever was. An improvement in financial markets will not be enough to correct that. The proof? If that market decline were the only obstacle, than all the money needed would have been borrowed long ago, when it was easy. But it wasn?t, because even then, this proposal did not qualify.

As is, the proposal is not supported, not desired, not ready, and incapable of proceeding.

What will be supported and desired, and thus achieve readiness, is a proposal that is competitively bid, complies with the Turnpike Master Plan, does not require the public to pay for its costs and profits, and is not found fraudulent in a public audit. John Rosenthal?s One Kenmore proposal is a good example. He?s proceeding so competently and quickly that by the time California?s Columbus Center finishes its meltdown and lawsuits, he?ll be ready to repeat his success at Parcels 16-17-18-19.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I will admit I stopped reading your post as soon as I saw your comment about the two communities not supporting this project. The Bay Village Association supports this project. This blatant, outright mis-representation of the facts right off the bat makes it impossible for me to read the rest of your post.

Columbus Center will begin rising in the next 12-18 months. Hurray for Boston.
 
Re: Columbus Center

pelhamhall said:
. . . The Bay Village Association supports this project.
Click to expand...

Although the smallest of the three adjoining communities, Bay Village, looks forward to a park-ette on Parcel 19, the latest proposal continues to be opposed by the two largest communities, which together abut most of the 7-acre site: the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay on the north, and the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association on the south.

Here?s the map.
Neighborhoods.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

So instead of saying "two of the three neighborhoods" you just chose to disregard the facts to paint a picture based on obscured part-truths. It's tactics like this that make the whole of your arguments so hard to believe/stomach.
 
Re: Columbus Center

1) From the map it looks like the Bay Village is the one that has the most to gain or lose from a poor project. It is the smallest in architectural scale, and could easily be swamped.
2) Back Bay doesn't seem to have nearly as much of a stake in this project compared to Bay Village, again, comparing the architectural scale of the contrasting neighborhoods and looking at your map. I note that you justify this through by aggreggating the South End and Back Bay to support your statement "which together abut most of the" project site. You would have been better served by stating that Back Bay will suffer more of the traffic impacts than Bay Village, but you are making a map based argument which appears to be unsupported by your own map.
3) Your map makes it look like Bay Village abuts more of the project site than the Back Bay. (I haven't taken out my ruler and put it to the map.) Indeed, according to your map, the only part of the Back Bay that appears to abut the project site is that delicate architectural flower, the John Hancock Parking Garage on Clarendon.
4) Is there some sort of gerrymandering going on in this map? Is Cortez Street part of your South End, but the structures that line it are part of Bay Village? Is this why you believe that Bay Village is less significant as an abutter?
5) Why do you dismiss Bay Village's opinion in your commentary, and why is that community's opinion deserving of less weight than your personal opinion?

I must say that, although I have read your posts with great interest, this last, which relates to matters about which I have personal familiarity, does for me cast doubt on those matters about which you comment with which I am not familiar. You are losing the credibility argument with this juror.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

I'd say that the 'Back Bay Community' begins at least four blocks north of Columbus Center -- at Newbury Street. Everything in between is commercial, not residential.

And yes, Cortes Street is part of Bay Village.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
What will be supported and desired, and thus achieve readiness, is a proposal that is competitively bid, complies with the Turnpike Master Plan, does not require the public to pay for its costs and profits, and is not found fraudulent in a public audit. John Rosenthal?s One Kenmore proposal is a good example. He?s proceeding so competently and quickly that by the time California?s Columbus Center finishes its meltdown and lawsuits, he?ll be ready to repeat his success at Parcels 16-17-18-19.
Click to expand...
Hah I can hardly believe that a proposal will be supported and desired if it was competitively bid. Know this Ned Flaherty, any project regardless if it was competitively bid or not will always have some neighborhood activists complaining about shadows, blocked views, and traffic. And knowing the awful process CC has gone through, I doubt many companies will try to bid this land knowing they will not see any profit from this project for at least well after they are dead due to opposition and decade long process to get it approved.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ron Newman said:
I'd say that the 'Back Bay Community' begins at least four blocks north of Columbus Center -- at Newbury Street. Everything in between is commercial, not residential.

And yes, Cortes Street is part of Bay Village.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought so too. But not according to Ned's map, which assigns Cortes Street project frontage to the South End, not to Bay Village. And I'd have said that the Berkeley St. frontage between Cortes and Columbus is Bay Village frontage too, not South End frontage as Ned's map designates it.

I have further concerns about this map. Historically, (no pejoration intended) the South End was defined as the "wrong side of the tracks". Wouldn't that put Stanhope St., etc. in the Back Bay? Functionally, the Stanhope area hasn't been part of the South End in two generations, and has served more as a service area for Back Bay businesses, and as a commercial adjunct to the Back Bay. Neighborhood boundaries are a touchy subject, but the ex "Hard Rock Cafe" and "Bertuccis" locations, which Ned's map assigns to the South End, aren't in the South End. Can anyone seriously dispute that? Yet Ned's map draws a border line down the service street that runs behind the Clarendon project. Doesn't that strike one as a bit artificial compared to putting the line right at the highway cut?

Otherwise the Stanhope area is no man's land, and gives the Back Bay a link only through the giant brutalist Hancock garage. That is hardly a link at all. (Perhaps that is why Ned aggregates the South End and Back Bay in his argument?) It is like saying the Berlin Wall linked east and west Berlin, whereas, in reality, it divided the city.

It makes no sense to claim, based on Ned's map, that the Back Bay has much abutting territory, unless you acknowledge history and move the Stanhope neighborhood into the Back Bay designation. Otherwise, the map gives Back Bay no real stake. I am not commenting on the merits or demerits of that lack of stake.

Ned has used his exhibit to support his point that the combined opposition of the South End and Back Bay groups ought to outweigh the favorable opinion of the Bay Village group. He can say "it's 2 to 1, you lose" only by minimizing the Bay Village frontage and lumping the insignificant Back Bay quantitative and qualitative frontage with that of the South End. This is has the whiff of an unnecessary manipulation of the material that might ill serve the legitimate interests of those in the South End who have environmental concerns.

And I remain puzzled why Bay Village garners so little respect.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

The neighbors who directly abut this project, Cortes Street, support this project. The only other nook of this site that has residents is the corner of Clarendon/Columbus. There is residential development on that corner, and that is where some of the squawking has come from - from one, isolated corner of the site. For the Back Bay neighborhood association to even weigh in is just silly. I agree with Ron Newman's sentiments exactly. The Back Bay begins four blocks away. There's a hulking brutalist garage linking the site to the Back Bay.

I maintain that this project has sweeping, practically unprecedented support throughout the city of Boston. It's truly a testament to the vision and drive of the Winn Companies. Saying "Mary Waltz and Shirley Kressel are against this project" holds no water. They are against every development. Every single one. They are no longer stake-holders in our city, they have proven to be nothing but stake-throwers. You need to support at least one project every 8-10 years in order to maintain some sort of credibility - and they haven't.

The vast majority of Bostonians want this built and support it. Let's not lose sight of this fact. Menino (72% city-wide approval rating) is strongly *strongly* behind this project.

(BTW - I love debating this project because it is one of the few mega-projects in this city than none of the four companies I've worked for over the past 15 years has any stake in whatsoever - I feel so much free-er to comment and vent on it. I don't want anyone to think I work for Winn or an associated party - I don't even know any of the people there. I'm very, very quiet on my company/ex-companies development threads)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Toby,
Ned (in this particular instance) is not crazy. Rather, the Ellis Neighborhood Association is.

From their bylaws:

PURPOSE:
The Ellis Neighborhood Association, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the quality of life within the Ellis neighborhood as an essentially residential neighborhood, accomplishing the same through information, education, advocacy, self-help, and activism.

ELLIS NEIGHBORHOOD:
The term "Ellis Neighborhood?, as used in these Bylaws, shall mean the area bounded by the center of Tremont Street from West Canton to Arlington, Arlington Street through its turnpike entrance ramp to Cortez, the south side of Cortez from Arlington to Berkeley, the center of Berkeley north from Cortez to Stanhope Street, both sides of Stanhope Street to Clarendon, the center of Clarendon south to Columbus Avenue, both sides of Columbus and the alley north of Columbus to Dartmouth (including 111 Dartmouth Street), the center of Columbus to West Canton, the east side of West Canton from Columbus to Warren, and both sides of West Canton from Warren to Tremont.
 
Re: Columbus Center

The south side of Cortes Street, of course, being a Turnpike on-ramp and open highway trench. If I lived on the north side, I'd support any reasonable development that put housing back on the south side.

Also would everyone here please spell Cortes correctly? Thanks.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Wocket,

That is very helpful.

This is very much like the situation one faces when reviewing the work of expert witnesses at trial.

One can find an expert witness to support almost any proposition. When you read that expert's report, usually everything is logical, internally consistent and has the ring of plausibility. That is why one never begins a cross examination on the expert's conclusion, but always with a review of that expert's (often unstated) assumptions. That is where the opinion almost always rises or falls.

The assumption behind the map delineation (and resulting theorization about comparative neighborhood abutting footage) is laid out in the Ellis group by-laws (which were undisclosed and which you unearthed.)

The by-laws do not appear to correspond with objective fact, but are social and aspirational in nature. Thus, the authority of the author's opinion about the lack of weight that should be given to Bay Village opinion vis a vis his group's opinion is, on the facts he presents, diminished.

Toby
 
Re: Columbus Center

To be fair, the association boundary may date back to before the Turnpike was built, in which case it's possible that dividing Cortes street this way once made sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top