Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,975
- Reaction score
- 2,300
Re: Columbus Center
Lol Tobes knows its not him....
Lol Tobes knows its not him....
Yes, it is. Here?s why. In 2003, the developers, and a Certified Public Accountant hired by the City, both confirmed in writing that the entire project was 100% privately funded, and totally subsidy-free. Then in 2006, the developers admitted that they?d planned to have the public pay their costs and profits ?from the get-go? (in 1996) as confirmed by spokesman Alan Eisner in (?Columbus Center wins tax credits worth millions?, Boston Globe, 30 June 2006).
So, yes, it is surprising that developers who propose their project as subsidy-free later admit that they actually planned for 13 years to use as many subsidies as possible.
New regulations for an existing factory are completely different from existing regulations (Turnpike Master Plan) for a future proposal (Columbus Center). Your analogy would be valid only if completed projects were required to comply with new master plans that get written after the projects get built.
The Turnpike Master Plan was a fact long before any Columbus Center proposals were published, so the developers were never forced to propose, and they were never ?forced to give up? anything. They chose, voluntarily, to publish proposals in which they claimed to fully comply with the pre-existing Master Plan, including its requirements for public open space, and its limits on height.
They gave up nothing, and their proposals promised that they wouldn?t need to give up anything.
There?s a keen distinction between the former owners and the current owners. The former owners submitted a subsidy-free proposal, knowing they would seek as many subsidies as possible later, when they hoped no one would notice. Then they sold their bait-and-switch business plan to CalPERS-CUIP. The 4-year storm of opposition from citizens, community groups, legislators, state agencies, and other towns arose from that bait-and-switch dishonesty more than from any other problem. Had the owners admitted to using subsidies from the beginning, the opposition generated by their dishonesty could never have occurred.. . . It's not whether they lied or not, it's the fact that honesty leads them no where either.
. . . Did you think CalPERs would have needed subsidies had the economy not be in such a sad state? . . . Due to rising construction cost and collapse of the housing market, profit has definitely dropped for the developers.
No, neither CalPERS nor any other developer can ever propose that, because the Turnpike Master Plan (published 28 June 2000, adopted 21 December 2000) requires that every proposal include a 2-acre, contiguous park on Parcel 18 whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet.. . . If CalPERS is a profit maximizing company, then they could have proposed a 70 story building with no park space to maximize profit in the area.
Public opposition does not generate a need for subsidies; in fact, opposition diminishes the chance of subsidies. On the other hand, when proposals are Master-Plan-compliant, opposition is lower, and subsidies are more likely.. . . Add . . . strong opposition and you get a project that needs help in order to be built.
No, neither CalPERS nor any other developer can ever propose that, because the Turnpike Master Plan (published 28 June 2000, adopted 21 December 2000) requires that every proposal include a 2-acre, contiguous park on Parcel 18 whenever the Parcel 16 skyscraper exceeds 150 feet.
Sometimes, I wonder if you even read my replies carefully. I know the the owners themselves stated that they did not needed subsidies. The point I'm trying to make is that had CC ever knew the economy were going to turn so sour so quickly and asked for subsidies from the start, they would not have received it and opposition to the project would have also grown at the point and thus no matter what they do in that current situation, they will lose. The severity of the economic downturn could have also played a role as they might not have expected to have the housing market plummet this much or the construction cost to rise so quickly in the recent years.? The owners themselves publicly confirmed that costs, revenues, and profits rise and fall ? together ? with the economy, so that when housing values fall, costs decrease too, and when costs rise, housing values do, too.
? The owners themselves and a City-engaged Certified Public Accountant publicly confirmed that the proposal was both subsidy-free and profitable.
I didn?t create either of the above statements; the owners themselves confirmed that rising and falling economies would never be a problem, and that no subsidies would ever be needed.
It?s true that no owner will ever realize the profit from a high tower built without any park. But that potential profit which you imagine from that design does not even exist at this property, because it is forbidden by the Turnpike Master Plan. Since it doesn?t exist in the first place, no one can claim they were forced ?to give it up.?. . . Owners . . . are "forced" to give up potential profit that could be gained by building higher without a park.
The 9 March 2001 proposal shows two skyscrapers: 38 stories on Parcel 16, and 33 stories on Parcel 17. The project was re-proposed multiple times from 2001 through 2005. The MTA 99-year lease signed 2 May 2006 says ?approximately 35 floors? on Parcel 16, and ?approximately 11 floors? on Parcel 17. Although the height was reduced, the project?s gross square footage grew by 152,800 (11%), from 1,338,000 in 2001 to 1,490,800 in 2006.. . . On another point, didn't CC's original plan include two towers instead of one?
You repeat your ?widespread support? mantra almost every time you post, but after excluding the people, organizations, and politicians who were offered some cash and prizes (or still hope to be offered some), and after excluding certain members of this forum, all that?s left is widespread opposition:
■ The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Banker & Tradesman, South End News, and Boston Business Journal have all run editorials and/or columnist articles that are highly critical of the proposal.
Lol Tobes knows its not him....
Why don't you guys get together, hash this out and then post the results. You have made this thread completely useless. You're being ignorant and selfish. ENOUGH
Clarendon work leaves Columbus Center in dust
By Scott Van Voorhis
Call it a tale of two towers.
Boston?s newest luxury tower, the Clarendon, is ramping up its marketing campaign this week as the frame of the 33-story tower slowly takes shape on the Back Bay skyline.
But a few blocks away, a dusty and now largely vacant construction site by the side of the Massachusetts Turnpike is the only evidence of the $800 million Columbus Center. Amid a tough economy and the loss of a financial backer, construction there has largely ground to a halt.
However, to state Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay) the dramatically different outcomes are no accident.
While planning on Columbus Center began in 2000, roughly two years before the Clarendon was first proposed, Columbus Center developers Roger Cassin and Arthur Winn became embroiled in a contentious, years-long battle with neighborhood groups about the size and height of the 400-foot project.
By contrast, the development team behind the Clarendon, headed by New York luxury condo builder Ken Himmel, cultivated a more harmonious working relationship with its neighbors. After initially floating plans for a 38-story tower, the developers slashed several stories off the blueprints.
The project sailed through the city permitting process. It moved into contruction last year and will open by early 2010.
So far, deposits have been taken on 11 of the project?s 103 condos, according to Bruce Beal Sr., a member of the development team.
?They didn?t declare war on the community with a bad project,? Walz said. ?They did what developers should do. They engaged the community in a conversation and addressed the community?s concerns as much as they could.?
Alan Eisner, a spokesman for Columbus Center, rejected such comparisons.
Columbus Center is a much more complex proposal that involves building on a deck over the Pike. As for working with the community, Eisner said the developers had pledged tens of millions for various community benefits.
?We are talking apples and oranges here,? Eisner said.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1093861
What do you think this could possibly prove?
Could you detail for us, Ned, how many negative opinion pieces . . . and pieces in favor in each of the papers above?
We all (including Winn) know you keep a clip book.
... In my travels and conversations with people who live in and around the South End, I have yet to encounter anyone who opposes the project.