Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Underground,

I do not call the Turnpike Master Plan ?binding legislation? (your words). Nor do I say it has ?statutory authority? (also your words).

But, it is good that people recognize the efficacy of the Plan as the potentially enormous issue that it has been for 8 years, and may yet become.

● The Plan?s purpose is ?to ensure the incorporation of neighborhood issues into the urban planning process? (BRA Director Mark Maloney, 28 June 2000) and ?create corridor-wide urban design principles? (21 December 2000).

● The Mayor and the MTA call it the definitive, ?exhaustive? road map, the ?essential guide to the City and its residents for years to come? and ?critical next steps? (Mayor Menino, 28 June 2000).

● On 20 December 2000, the Boston Redevelopment Authority officially adopted it as the ?framework for the BRA and future Citizens Advisory Committees to review future development proposals as well as a proposed process for air rights development? (BRA Director Mark Maloney, 21 December 2000).

● The 101-page Turnpike Master Plan is the master plan, and it is the only such plan. Having no equivalents or rivals, it carries serious legal weight.

● Over several years, during public meetings and also during slightly more private government meetings, the developers and MTA tried to dismiss the Turnpike Master Plan as nothing more than an optional suggestion. They failed.

If anyone now backs away from this 2-year, 26-member, $1 million master planning effort, then that will make one more item on the growing list of public process transgressions.

But so far, that has not happened.
Nice straw-man, Ned! Very helpful for keeping crows away, but not so much for making arguments. I said you talk about the master plan as if it was binding legislation. You said that you didn't say it was, but then proceeded to talk about it LIKE IT WAS BINDING LEGISLATION!
 
Re: Columbus Center

Hey Underground, tell me your name or else!
 
Re: Columbus Center

But I look pretty good in a... oh never mind.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I propose we turn this thread into "Ned Flaherty", program a response to his posts that say "No, Ned, you are wrong", and he can reply to them to his heart's content. Either that, or chip in for a plane ticket to Guyana, where he can sip KoolAide with Dude Y'ur Sister's Hot.

OMG Ned Flaherty and Dude in the same post. That's it, I've become a Toby fanboy.

...that is your REAL name, isn't it?
 
Re: Columbus Center

O.K. I confess. It is the name of my dog. Toby. That's him in the picture with the (faux)knife through his head. I'm named after my dog.

My last name isn't Jones, though. (No slight intended toward Jimbo).

When faced with any dilemma, I think "What Would Toby Do?"

(Bite Ned? No. I kind of like Ned, but maybe more in a "gotta squeeze that pimple" kind of way, though. More Neds are good. Not true of pimples, however. Sorry, free associating again. More Meds are good...)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Brilliant idea Toby...this thread should be renamed for Ned at least for the day. Most statements on this thread have far less to do with fact than with what Ned decides are facts and what others think of Ned. So let's just make it official.
 
Re: Columbus Center

As for how Bay Village came to support the project, the answer is BVNA voted on it. BVNA also voted at one point or another to support (or in some cases not to oppose, which amounts to the same thing) projects including 19 St. James, One Charles, the Jurys Hotel addition, the W hotel, and the proposal for 212 Stuart. In many cases, support came after some negotiation about design or streetscape. Note, Ted G, that BVNA has supported a significant number of tall buildings that are north of the neighborhood that filled dead lots or otherwise contributed to the urban fabric. Why won't Ned support one north of his building? I hope you've been active in supporting good proposals in JP as well.

As for the 7 members of the CAC who voted in favor of the proposal, I hope that no one who has followed the distortions and misrepresentations on this thread will accept Ned's assertion that these people were "controlled by the developer."

As for the Ellis gerrymander, what happened was that the residents of the Pope building on Columbus (the residential building with the most understandable gripes about shadows) affiliated with Ellis to more effectively register their opposition. On the basis of this one building (the "residents north of the Pike" Ned mentions) Ellis re-drew its boundaries to include all of the "unclaimed" territory, i.e., the Pike. Under the bylaws Bay Village, the current inhabitants of the south side of Cortes (rodents, chiefly Norway rats) cannot vote. I will, however, confess that I haven't heard any of them complain about their affiliation with Ellis.

Bay Village does assume that if Columbus Center is actually built, human inhabitants of the rebuilt south side of Cortes will choose to affiliate with their immediate neighbors.
 
Re: Columbus Center


I?ve seen the future and it?s not a parking lot

by John A Keith
Contributing Writer, South End News
Thursday Apr 24, 2008

Recently, I was at a neighborhood event and remarked to a friend, ?You know, I hope they end up building Columbus Center.?

His response was, ?Well of course you do, it?s to your benefit.?

Ouch. I was like, ?Say what??

?Sure,? he said. ?You?d be able to sell some of those condos. It?s to your benefit, but it?s okay, I understand.?

Wow. While I?ve heard this argument before, I couldn?t believe that someone I knew so well thought that my motives were shaped so selfishly. In fact, my friend was mistaken. I, like many residents, support development all over the city - because it?s not just me who would benefit from some well-planned new development, but nearly everyone who lives in the city of Boston. I?m more concerned about the future of our city than the thinness of my wallet.

So, what does ?new development? represent to me? Improvement. Progress. Ideas. Creativity. Vitality.

What does no development mean to me? Well, Woody Allen may have put it best. To paraphrase him, ?A city is like a shark. It doesn?t live unless it moves forward.? We don?t want a dead shark on our hands, do we?

Of course, living in Boston and being in support of the ?new? is a lost cause, some of the time. After all, neighbors, residents and visitors say that what makes Boston distinct from other US cities is its ?character,? its ?history? - but sometimes, that?s just a nice of way of saying ?stodgy and resistant to change.? Sure, I can appreciate Boston for what it is - I live in an historic neighborhood full of beautiful homes. But there?s more to a healthy city than pretty architecture.

And that?s why I was disappointed to read that the Columbus Center project has been delayed, once again.
Columbus Center, of course, is the massive 1.3 million-square-foot mixed-use development that is to be developed on decks built above the Massachusetts Turnpike. As proposed, the project would include condos and a hotel, as well as parks and retail space. At the end of March, the developer stopped construction. Then, two weeks ago, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pulled public funding for the project. On the heels of that, MassHousing withdrew a loan commitment.

Just the latest in a long history of problems with a project that?s been in the works for over a decade.

Across the city, you could hear cheers and applause from the usual suspects - from public officials who?ve never support any new building of any size, as well as from a local cast of characters , residents whose favorite response to any proposal seems to be, ?No I don?t support that, and here?s why.? I think I even saw the ghost of Jane Jacobs, patron saint of the condemnation of urban renewal, rise above Clarendon Street and give her blessing to the pious few who congregated below to give thanks.

But, one thing that really bugs me is that the opponents of Columbus Center have been so selective in memory.

Eighteen years ago, there was a lot of anti-building sentiment when a developer proposed putting up condos at 75 Clarendon, which towers directly across the street from where Columbus Center will one day rise. At the time, abutters said that the building would be ?too tall? and ?out of scale? with the neighborhood. Sound familiar? Today, it?s residents of that ?too tall? and ?out of scale? building that are among the most vocally opposed to the Columbus Center project. Ironic? Yes, and I think, sad. I guess it?s just another case of, ?I?ve got mine, but you?re out of luck.?

But let?s be clear before anyone has delusions of grandeur. Columbus Center is not in mothballs because of any community opposition. It is on hold because the developer couldn?t get the money together to move forward, a situation that does rightfully require scrutiny by the community and elected officials.

Still, despite that somewhat major issue, the Columbus Center is an essentially good idea. Really, what?s not to love about Columbus Center? You have a hotel that brings in business people and tourists - two groups of people who spend lots of money, money that runs our city?s economy. You have new revenue due to an increase in property taxes on the hotel and condos (admittedly, some of the benefits would be lost, short-term, due to tax credits granted by the city and state). You have a physical link between the long-divided Back Bay and South End. You have additional parking for residents, visitors and neighbors. Do we need to be convinced of the value of that? And, the part that?s most overlooked, you have new parkland the length of a football field within walking distance from all our homes - and I promise, they?ll allow dogs.

Like I told my friend, I can only hope that the project will eventually be built, preferably in my lifetime.

Obviously, where and how development happens is as important as whether it happens at all. And, as we?ve seen across the country during the past couple of years, ?over-development? is a big, big problem. But I dare say we haven?t had enough growth in Boston. The number of housing units added in the city over the past half decade is well under 10,000 - you?d think it was a lot more, I know.

But in fact, what?s happened is that we?ve repeatedly fumbled the chance to make a change, a chance to lower housing costs through increased residential construction. Meanwhile, office and commercial rents have skyrocketed, due to lack of space - something that you don?t hear about too much, but is very important when corporations consider where to place employees (we currently have the lowest vacancy rate in a decade in the downtown Boston area). And, the biggest benefit to building, the one any elected official can love? Jobs. Jobs for construction workers, jobs in hotels and shops for those in the restaurant and hotel trades and in the service industry, jobs in offices for corporate types, jobs for virtually all sectors of employment. Hey, we all gotta eat.

Still, if you?re interested in a new Boston, a better Boston - and I hope you are - don?t be discouraged by this unfortunate turn of events. There are plenty of other buildings going up in our neighborhood and across the city, many projects that are either already under construction or about to break ground.

Within view from the rooftops of your homes you can see construction under way on The Bryant condo building and The Clarendon condo and apartment project and, off in the distance, two new dormitory high-rises on the site of Northeastern University. Soon, I expect to see a new residential tower and office tower on Prudential Plaza, and another one at Copley Place. Meanwhile, the Museum of Fine Arts is reaching the end of its record-breaking $500 million capital campaign which will allow it to display more of its vast collections of art. There?s even life in the financial district. Currently, there are three large office buildings under construction - Russia Wharf, Two Financial Center, and the first of many buildings on Fan Pier.

The most exciting project planned, far more ambitious than Columbus Center, is Seaport Square, down on the Waterfront. This is a 6.5 million square-foot, multi-use project, yet, surprisingly, there has been little opposition to the proposal. Mostly, people want to know just two things: how much parking will be included and when can you start?

So, I wouldn?t consider Columbus Center to be a ?litmus test? of whether or not anything can be built in the city of Boston or a sign of ?NIMBYism? rearing its ugly, sometimes masked head. Far from it. There?s too much else going on that?s good.

What I would say is that for too long in our city, the interests of a few have taken precedence and priority over the needs of the many. Now, it?s time for that to change.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I think I even saw the ghost of Jane Jacobs, patron saint of the condemnation of urban renewal, rise above Clarendon Street and give her blessing to the pious few who congregated below to give thanks.

Am I reading this incorrectly or is the author implying that Jane Jacobs would be opposed to CC?
 
Re: Columbus Center

Oh, give the writer a break.

That line was a rewrite at the last second. The point was, Jane Jacobs wouldn't like the project because it didn't fit in with the scale of the neighborhood.

The "patron saint of the condemnation of urban renewal" line throws it off. The editor added that.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Congratulations on your article. It was well reasoned, well argued, and I think you were right to start out the way you did. How many times do I have to read, "Keith just says this or that because he's in real estate."
 
Re: Columbus Center

Oh, give the writer a break.

That line was a rewrite at the last second. The point was, Jane Jacobs wouldn't like the project because it didn't fit in with the scale of the neighborhood.

The "patron saint of the condemnation of urban renewal" line throws it off. The editor added that.

Don't get me wrong. I really like the piece (I should have said that in my orginal post). I just disagree with Jacobs bit. But I could be wrong, and it's too late to ask her.
 
Re: Columbus Center

* itchy, if only I were that smart to write that
* I actually started the article this way:

Recently, I was at a neighborhood event and remarked to a friend, ?You know, I hope they end up building Columbus Center.?

His response was, ?Well of course you do, it?s to your benefit.?

Ouch. I was like, ?WTF?

But she made the change to "say what".
 
Re: Columbus Center

That was a really good article. What many NIMBYs do is see the negative side of a project? Pretty much a group of pessimist. They see only the pollution which is probably not as bad as some people made it to be (otherwise the problem would be mentioned more often in newspaper articles). They see out of scale which is ridiculous since the area is full of high-rises. They see shadows, block views, blah blah blah. But whatever. The article is right. There are many other projects going up in Boston. Might as well enjoy that instead of complaining about NIMBYs, else I'll be just as pessimistic as them.

BTW, the article states that CC would have included parkland the length of a football field. Do we really need another freaking 2 acre park to compliment this? It's a waste of space no matter how you say it. A waste of space....
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

THERE WILL (always) BE PARK.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I think the comments got a bit mean-spirited, during the past week or so.

Mr Flaherty seems to have given up, which, depending on your point of view, is a good thing or a bad thing.

I like hashing out differences in a public forum. I don't know if people thought I was harsh, myself, so maybe you think I'm being hypocritical, but I felt that you guys took it too far.

I really don't to get into it, again, but I would like to say, if we want this board to be more popular, we might need to encourage more conversation and civil discourse.

Actually, I don't even know if that sentence made any sense, but I think you know what I meant.

This post isn't about being a task-master, though.

What I wanted to say is, I'd have more faith in those against Columbus Center if they were as critical of other Pike projects.

For example, I've never heard anyone complain about John Rosenthal's plans to build on Parcel 7, even though he seems to have received approval with as little oversight as Winn did, on their parcel. As well, the pollution issues raised by Mr Flaherty would seem to be a question down the street, too.

If he was truly interested in what was best for residents of the city, he would be out protesting that project, as well.

That he is not, only feeds the controversy that he is against Columbus Center because it's directly across the street from his home!

(** The complaint that Columbus Center shouldn't go forward because of the state funding may be a valid one, and it makes CC unique, but the funding is only one of many (MANY) reasons that some people are opposed. They'd still be opposed to CC, even without the public funding.

Plus, it's not as if Parcel 7 will be built without public funding. I believe (or assume, I forget) that Rosenthal is asking for money to be used to rebuild the Fenway subway stop - er, public transportation "portal". **)
 
Re: Columbus Center

Excerpted from today's LA Times:

L.A.'s Grand Avenue project snags on loans

The $3-billion effort has had difficulty obtaining construction financing amid the real estate downturn. The projected finish date for its first phase is now 2012.


By Cara Mia DiMassa
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 29, 2008

The developer of the Grand Avenue project in downtown Los Angeles said Monday that completion of the $3-billion redevelopment effort will be delayed until 2012 because of difficulty in obtaining construction loans amid the real estate downturn.

The Frank Gehry-designed high-rise project is seen as a linchpin in downtown's revitalization, and the delay is the latest sign that the loft and condo craze in the city center is cooling off.

Grand Avenue was originally supposed to begin construction last fall, but that date has been pushed back several times.

The project's first phase -- which includes a shopping center, a hotel and two residential towers -- was once slated to be completed in 2009, but officials at Related Co. now say 2012 is a more likely target.

Bill Witte, head of Related California, said he now believes that construction will begin in the first quarter of 2009 and emphasized that the project is not in any jeopardy. A fund controlled by Dubai's royal family has invested $100 million, and Related is close to naming another major equity partner (an earlier partner, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, pulled out, saying it was over-invested in the downtown real estate market).

But even with the equity, Related has yet to secure a construction loan.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-grandavenue29apr29,0,1937505.story
 
Re: Columbus Center

CalPERS and MacFarlane lose money in another project.

Wall Street Journal
Calpers Takes Hit on Land Deal

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]In a Rare Misstep, Pension Fund Trips On Real-Estate Bid[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times,serif][FONT=times new roman,times,serif]By MICHAEL CORKERY and CRAIG KARMIN
May 1, 2008; Page C1
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
The nation's largest pension fund is involved in one of the biggest land deals to fall victim to the housing bubble. It is an unusual position for the investor, which has a reputation for avoiding such blowups.


The deal involved a $970 million investment by an investment entity that included the California Public Employees' Retirement System in a venture that owns thousands of acres of undeveloped residential land north of downtown Los Angeles. Now, due to the downward spiral of the housing market, Calpers may find itself having to relinquish the well-located land to creditors and possibly lose much of its investment.


MI-AQ185_CALPER_20080430193346.jpg

Pension funds have been players in the property market stretching back to at least the 1970s and have recently pursued more-complex real-estate investments. Land investment remains rare among these large institutional investors.

Calpers, a $244 billion fund, did its first undeveloped land deal in 1994 and today has seven partners for such deals and investments in more than 12 states.

"Land is the riskiest form of speculative real estate," said Paul Puryear, a housing analyst at Raymond James & Associates. "That's why you have such huge swings in value." Selling land to home builders can yield huge profits. But when demand from builders stall, land can lose value quickly because there are few other ways to generate income from it. "Maybe you can put cattle on it and wait until people can afford to buy houses again," Mr. Puryear said.

At the time of Calpers's investment, February 2007, the venture was appraised at $2.6 billion. The value of that venture, whose backers included the builder Lennar Corp. and LNR Property Corp., a unit of Cerberus Capital Management, is now much less.

The venture, LandSource Communities Development LLC, had assets valued at $1.8 billion as of the end of February, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but debt of about $1.24 billion. LandSource also is under siege by debtholders. The venture is running low on cash and may have to file for bankruptcy in coming weeks, according to a person involved in the venture. Still, while creditors could take ownership of LandSource's land and other assets, they have little other recourse against Calpers, LNR or Lennar.

The deal could prove a rare public misstep for Calpers, which had nearly $21 billion of real-estate investments at the end of September, or about 8% of its total assets, and is one of the largest land owners in the country.

Calpers's investment in the LandSource deal represents less than 1% of its total assets, and the rest of its real-estate portfolio has performed well, with a 12.4% nominal return after fees for the 12 months ending Sept. 30.
In that portfolio, some deals have suffered deep losses. M/W Housing Partners III LP, which includes the LandSource investment, had a return after fees of negative 53.6% for the year ending in September. Another deal, Hearthstone Housing Partners II LP, lost 40.2% in that period.

Rob Feckner, Calpers board president, said for a portfolio as big and diverse as the fund's, some losses were to be expected. "Real estate is a very cyclical business, especially right now," he said in an interview.

Details of the soured land deal are emerging amid upheaval in Calpers's executive suite. The chief executive, Fred Buenrostro, said this week he planned to step down. Last week, Russell Read, the chief investment officer, announced his resignation. People familiar with Calpers said the moves don't appear to be related to the LandSource deal.

The venture is structured similar to dozens of deals that were popular ways for builders like Lennar to buy highly leveraged land during the boom years and reduce the risk of owning the land outright. They would buy the land with partners in off-balance-sheet entities that would borrow money while limiting the builders' exposure to the debt. Many of these deals are unraveling.

The LandSource deal has the twist that the Calpers investment vehicle took a significant stake in the venture, amid the slowing housing market and months before real-estate values plummeted. MW Housing took a 68% stake in LandSource in February 2007, while Lennar and LNR reduced their exposure, each taking a 16% stake and each receiving $660 million after bringing MW Housing into the venture.

MW Housing was co-managed by MacFarlane Partners, a veteran manager of Calpers money, with $11.7 billion in real-estate assets under management. In recent years, MacFarlane has invested as much as $4 billion from Calpers in real-estate projects, such as the Time Warner Center and the Tribeca Green, a 24-story apartment building, both in New York City.

LandSource's California assets are prime real estate. They include some of the only undeveloped acreage in the greater Los Angeles area, about 15,000 acres known as Newhall Ranch lands.

MacFarlane recommended the deal because the land was located in an area with "long-term growth prospects" and investors would realize returns over 12 to 15 years, according to a person familiar with the matter. At the time, MacFarlane anticipated a slowdown in the real-estate market and obtained an independent appraisal of the land as part of its due diligence.

Shortly after Calpers made its investment, Barclays Capital arranged about $1.5 billion in loans for LandSource, which were snapped up by more than 100 investors. The March 2007 offering was oversubscribed.

LandSource's plan was to sell hundreds of ready-to-go house lots to builders to generate cash to service the debt, while the Newhall land was prepared for development, which could take years.

Once the credit crunch hit, demand for the lots evaporated, and the venture was left with less income than it expected.

Negotiations over debt restructuring between LandSource and its lenders are continuing. LandSource recently pulled back from a proposal to contribute several hundred million dollars of additional equity.

LNR didn't respond to a request to comment.

Lennar's chief investment officer, Emile Haddad, who is a managing member of LandSource, said the builder has an "excellent" relationship with Calpers. "These are tough times for all of us," he said. "It's during these times that relationships get tested."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120960362036258063.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top