Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[briv]

Re: Columbus Center

Briv, thread administrators such as yourself are trained to ensure the most efficient use of site resources, so given that the original article was posted more legibly and with a better image in message #1052 on 30 May, then why did you re-post the entire thing again in message #1074, with a lower quality image, in less legible all italics, 2 days later?

Ned, I don know if you were trying to be funny, or cute, or if you were just being a douche, but obviously I overlooked that original post. I realize that you may not be able to see this through your all-consuming obsession with Columbus Center, but it's pretty easy for posts to be lost in the overwhelming volume of your incessantly-posted screeds.

I can only assume that you were trying to be ironic when you questioned the efficiency of my use of "site resources" soon after you yourself had just posted three discreet comments in a row, one after the other, separated by only minutes. In fact, I see you've posted six times today alone, bringing your total, all in this single thread, to a whopping 158 posts. I think it's pretty clear to everyone but yourself that you're not only posting excessively, but also in a very inefficient way.

Up to this point, I think that I've been more than tolerant of your kooky preoccupation with the procedural minutia--real or imagined--concerning this project; but enough is enough. The constant posting is becoming something of a nuisance. So consider yourself warned: either learn some restraint, or you can drag your soapbox elsewhere.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

If there is no standard, why does CC have to follow it then?

No one has said that any project must follow a standard that does not yet exist. But what I have said here, and what other corridor residents are saying elsewhere, is that because the public health risks from UFP exposure are well known, and because MTA?s ventilation scheme exacerbates those risks manifold, MTA and its business partners should identify the optimum solution and then provide it.

. . . CC was not required to mitigitate the impact of UFP.

UFP was discovered ? and the resulting public health risks were confirmed ? before this project was proposed, so the City?s scope required the owners? proposal to include UFP and the MTA?s vents. But both were omitted, so corridor residents couldn?t raise the issue, and the agencies received no public comments about it. So, no, the owners have not yet been required to mitigate this. But they still could be.

Yes maybe they did promise to make sure UFP will not create a toxic zone but a promise is not the same as a requirement.

In Boston, promises that owners make just to get approvals are converted into the equivalent of legal requirements and written into multiple government agreements, such as this project?s MTA Development Agreement, MTA 99-Year Lease, and various public subsidy applications. Whether the ?hermetically sealed? promise will be enforced remains to be seen.

. . . If you are afraid of UFP so much, move out of the city and into the suburbs, there's no UFP there.

The completed studies show that UFP is found in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.

. . . This is a city, pollution comes along with it. If you don't like it, don't live in it.

Developers often say, ?If you don?t like what we want to do, then you should move.? But the reverse sentiment carries greater weight in zoning lawsuits: ?What you want to do hasn?t been allowed before, and it isn?t allowed now, and it shouldn?t be allowed later, so either do it elsewhere, or else don?t do it at all.? Of course, neither attitude makes for constructive dialogue, but both appear often.

. . . if . . . a court ruled that Massachusetts should establish a UFP standard . . . and . . . achieve that standard, there would be two remedies: greatly reduce all traffic . . ., or buy out his condo and his building and tear it down.

Remedy #1 (traffic reduction) has proven universally impractical, and remedy #2 (demolition) is rare; but there are three other remedies, all more likley after a lawsuit:
#3 - Build something that complies with the standard.
#4 - Postpone building until the standard can be met.
#5 - Don?t build anything at all.

 

[Cojapo]

Re: Columbus Center

Apparently Briv, your point was not taken!

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

No one has said that any project must follow a standard that does not yet exist. But what I have said here, and what other corridor residents are saying elsewhere, is that because the public health risks from UFP exposure are well known, and because MTA?s ventilation scheme exacerbates those risks manifold, MTA and its business partners should identify the optimum solution and then provide it.

...................
Remedy #1 (traffic reduction) has proven universally impractical, and remedy #2 (demolition) is rare; but there are three other remedies, all more likley after a lawsuit:
#3 - Build something that complies with the standard.
#4 - Postpone building until the standard can be met.
#5 - Don?t build anything at all.

Re: the standard. You contradicted yourself in the same post. (Bolding mine).

#1. why is traffic reduction universally impractical? Does not Boston have a long-standing cap on parking spaces so that air quality standards can be attained?

#3. putting aside the non-existent standard, the source of the pollution is not the building or the deck, but cars, trucks, buses, and diesel railroad engines. You control pollution at the source.

#4. again putting aside the non-existent standard, this is simply a call for not building at all.

#5. a valid option, though it does nothing about the current and future pollution that apparently permeates your building.

Oh, and what the NRDC really wants for those freeways in southern California is to get some / all of those diesel trucks off the road.

Oh, and Ned, IMO if there ever is a UFP standard, it is rather probable that achieving the fine particulate standard will also result in achieving a UFP standard. It goes to the nature of controlling the current sources of concern for these particulates, which are diesel engines.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

No one has said that any project must follow a standard that does not yet exist. But what I have said here, and what other corridor residents are saying elsewhere, is that because the public health risks from UFP exposure are well known, and because MTA’s ventilation scheme exacerbates those risks manifold, MTA and its business partners should identify the optimum solution and then provide it.


UFP was discovered — and the resulting public health risks were confirmed — before this project was proposed, so the City’s scope required the owners’ proposal to include UFP and the MTA’s vents. But both were omitted, so corridor residents couldn’t raise the issue, and the agencies received no public comments about it. So, no, the owners have not yet been required to mitigate this. But they still could be.


In Boston, promises that owners make just to get approvals are converted into the equivalent of legal requirements and written into multiple government agreements, such as this project’s MTA Development Agreement, MTA 99-Year Lease, and various public subsidy applications. Whether the “hermetically sealed” promise will be enforced remains to be seen.


The completed studies show that UFP is found in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike.

Hmm, ever realized that busy highway that your living next to has UFP, no matter what? And that Europe uses mostly diesel and I don't see their life expectancy going down and their cancer rates going up? And that if UFP is found everywhere, you can't do anything about it. But that's not true, less UFP is found in suburban and rural areas where YOU CAN MOVE TO if you're scared for your health. Everyone in the InterContinental Hotel will die immediately, everyone will get nasty cancers which cause people painful deaths, people will choke to death on the UFP. UFP exists whether or not Columbus Center is built, if you're so worried about it then MOVE AWAY FROM THE PIKE, wow n00b.

 

[Suffolk 83]

Re: Columbus Center

I think Ned got the point.... I would have alot more respect for the man if he at least posted in other threads maybe then people would accept him

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

Another delay for Columbus Center?

South End News ? Thursday, June 5, 2008 ? by Managing Editor Linda Rodriguez ? www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=75467

Even as the site of the massive Columbus Center remains a local eyesore, there?s another concern circulating the neighborhood: that the lease negotiated between the developers of the project and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority may allow for a 10-year delay in the construction of the luxury condominium project.

According to a proposed amendment to the lease that was approved by the MTA Board on Feb. 19, the developers of the project would be required to pay an escalating fee for each year that they don?t complete the rest of the project beyond the building of the deck over the turnpike. Though the amendment stipulates that the entire project must be completed by Dec. 21, 2012, a clause under section 6.2 indicates that ?if Tenant elects to delay commencement of the Vertical Portion of the Project ... Tenant shall make the following payments.? Those payments are listed as $52,000 in the first year and grow to $598,000 in the 10th year.

?The question is, how many more exceptions would there be?? asked South End State Representative Byron Rushing. ?[The developers] would be able to have a vacant deck for ten years, if they?re willing to pay for it.?

Mac Daniel, spokesman for the MTA, said that the MTA is more concerned about the developer?s recent request for an 18-month moratorium on construction. ?That?s simply a provision that?s in that lease that addresses a situation that we?re nowhere near right now and don?t expect to be near,? he said. ?Our concern is negotiating the next 18 months and everything else is secondary.?

Though construction on the Columbus Center project began in November 2007, the developers asked for an 18-month moratorium on construction, citing concerns about their finances and ?capital structure? in late March. At that point, the lease amendments that included the 10-year payment schedule clause were withdrawn from the consideration of the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, an advisory committee to the MTA that reviews the agency?s lease and land use agreements. They were also never given to the Patrick administration for the necessary approval by the governor.

Since March, the construction site has seen minimal activity as the developers scramble to find funding in harsh economic times.

At a May 27 meeting with Bay Village residents facilitated by Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, MTA director Alan LeBovidge said that the MTA would be in talks with the developer around the 18-month moratorium request for another month. As yet, however, he said there had been no new developments with the project. During a June 4 meeting of the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, Stephen Hines of the MTA said that the agency was in discussions with the developers about the proposed moratorium and that they are ?open to granting that period, as long as certain conditions are met.?

On the question of a 10-year delay in the completion of the project, Daniel said that small section is not high on the MTA?s list of concerns. ?It hasn?t been adopted and it?s a very small part of a much larger agreement. Why this would be discussed or even a topic of concern when we?re negotiating this 18 month delay - it seems superfluous right now,? he said. ?We?ll deal with it once we get past these current negotiations.?

Still, some critics of the behemoth project say the clause raises a red flag. Said Rushing, ?There is nothing from our experience with this developer that would make us think that we?re not going to have an eyesore for another 10 years.?

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Wait.....so building the deck creates and eyesore, but 6 lanes of turnpike plus rail is aesthetically preferable?

I would think that decking it and leaving the towers unbuilt for 10 years would make the neighbors estatic.....less noise without the added traffic and shadows.....of course, nothing is safe with killer UFP's around....

 

[kennedy]

Re: Columbus Center

heh.

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

Columbus builders seek delay

Boston Sunday Globe ? June 8, 2008 ? by Globe Correspondent Christina Pazzanese ? http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/08/columbus_builders_seek_delay/

Residents of Cortes Street say they have lost trees, parking, and use of a sidewalk as a result of the stalled project in the Back Bay and South End. (Christina Pazzanese for the Boston Globe)


Massachusetts Turnpike Authority officials say they expect to decide in the next few weeks whether to grant the developers of the Columbus Center project an 18-month construction delay.

The $800 million condominium, hotel, and retail complex, slated to be built on four parcels along the Mass. Pike in the South End and Back Bay, has been beset by development troubles since planning began in 1996.

?At this point, it?s totally a matter of financing,? said Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the Center?s development team of WinnDevelopment and MacFarlane Partners/CalPERS. The recent downturn in the economy, the state?s decision not to contribute millions in loans and grants, and ?issues? with the Turnpike Authority over the lease led to the developer?s request in March for a hiatus, said Eisner. ?Since then, all sides have been working diligently to try and piece this back together. The goal is to keep the door open,? he said.

On Wednesday, Stephen Hines, the turnpike?s chief development officer, told the Mass. Highway System Advisory Board that the project ?is not proceeding at this moment in any significant way.? He said the authority is still in discussions with the developers over their request to delay the construction and was ?hopeful? something could be worked out soon.

Hines said the authority was open to granting WinnDevelopment a delay provided certain conditions are met, such as making the streets and sidewalks around the 7-acre property safe and accessible to the public and freeing up parking spaces lost during construction.

?In the event they don?t proceed? with the project, the developer would be asked to restore the site to its prior condition, said Hines.

The board, which reviews and makes recommendations about the authority?s real estate deals, has asked to be kept informed about the terms of any delay agreement with the developers before it is signed.

Turnpike spokesman Mac Daniel said executive director Alan LeBovidge delivered a similar message to the Bay Village Neighborhood Association on May 27, but cautioned residents that talks could go on beyond the end of June.

?As far as financing and the project moving forward, we are waiting to hear back from the developers,? said Jessica Shumaker, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, in an e-mail. ?They told us they needed a few more weeks to work through project details and financing sources and that they would come back to us with an update as soon as they had more info.?

After dozens of residents implored Mayor Thomas M. Menino in April to require the developer to secure the idle construction site and to clean up abutting streets during any project delay, the developers agreed to pay for workers from Project Place to regularly neaten the area surrounding the property.

Two weeks ago, the South End nonprofit, which helps homeless people find jobs and does similar street tidying in 13 Boston neighborhoods, began sending teams of between five and a dozen workers armed with brooms and dustbins to pick up debris and cigarette butts, and remove posters for two hours each weekday, said Suzanne Kenney, Project Place?s executive director.

Kenney said that although the arrangement is only temporary while the long-term fate of the project is hashed out, she hopes eventually they'll be hired on a permanent basis. ?We don?t know how long this is going to happen,? said Kenney. ?We?re just going to continue until we hear otherwise.?

The BRA plans to repair a hole in the fence on Cortes Street and has put up signs along Stanhope Street alerting passersby that local businesses are indeed open, said Shumaker.

? Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[Arborway]

Re: Columbus Center

Is the 18 month delay a moving target? Construction stopped months ago, so I'm not sure if it's 18 months from then, or 18 months from whenever the 18 month delay is approved.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

Re: Columbus Center

This thread (and project) should be renamed "Columbus Center: A Lesson in Futility."

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

Source of concern

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/pub/5_342/teller/

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Time to warm up the car for that trip to the "farm in New Hampshire".

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Columbus Center

But don't fret, CC will be much happier up there with all that room to romp and play and certainly no UFPs to hurt the tenants. Look on the bright side, there will always be that nice scar....er, gap that is the Pike to remind you of what could have been.

 

[briv]

Re: Columbus Center

Thanks for posting that TedG.

What is that rendering of? Cortes St?

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

The rendering in the newspaper article is from the 2003 proposal. It is of Cortes Street, looking West toward Berkeley Street. Columbus Center over parcel 18 is on the left.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Columbus Center looks to be a different kettle of fish than LandSource.

S&P Anticipates LandSource BankruptcySource: BIG BUILDER News
Publication date: 2008-04-30

By Teresa Burney

Standard & Poor's reported on April 29 that LandSource Communities Development is expected to file for bankruptcy protection within the next two to three weeks.

The ratings agency was told of the impending filing by the group's lenders following a private call, said analysts Abby Latour and Kerry Kantin in their report.

"A depletion of cash will likely prompt the filing next month," Latour and Kantin wrote. "The company's cash pile has dwindled to roughly $25 million, from about $115 million in early February."

By filing for protection from creditors in bankruptcy court, the company could preserve its remaining cash and start arranging to sell assets, sources told S&P.

LandSource's spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.
Last week, LandSource, a California-based land development company owned by MW Housing Partners, Lennar Corp., and LNR Properties, received a notice of default on its loan agreements.

Just over a year ago, LandSource took out $1.3 billion in loans arranged by Barclays to buy 68% of the company from Lennar and LNR, which each retained 16% interest. The first lien on the company for $1 billion is in default.

The notice came after LandSource missed a deadline to re-margin the deal made necessary because the land had lost value in the plummeting home building market.

Despite the notice, discussions on how to restructure the total of $1.3 billion in debt so the company can make the payments in the current market continued, Tamara Taylor, a LandSource spokesperson, said at the time.
S&P reported that there has been little communication between the company's sponsors and lenders recently, "raising the ire of lenders, who delivered a default notice after the most recent forbearance agreement expired on April 16."

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), which is part of MW Partners, said it was not willing to move forward with a credit-enhancement package for LandSource that included a $550 million commitment over three years, according to S&P.

"Lenders heard in an April 15 call that CalPERS's view is that the terms are no longer tenable," Latour and Kantin wrote.

Just last year, Lennar was lauded as masterful for finding a way pull cash out of land while still retaining rights to use it later when it sold off the lion's share of LandSource. Lennar and LNR Property each received about $700 million for selling off 68% of LandSource to MW Housing Partners, an entity co-managed by McFarlane Partners on behalf of CalPERS, and Weyerhaeuser.

MW Housing got 50% of the voting rights, while Lennar and LNR retained 16% ownership each and a combined 50% of the voting rights. Lennar also maintained access to the land for future construction and, in the meantime, would be paid "significant" management fees.

The deal was heralded as a perfect partnership. CalPERS is a long-term investor, valued for its patience in receiving returns. And it fit with Lennar's ongoing strategy to move more land--and its costs and risks--off its home building books.

At the time of the deal, LandSource's properties had a book value of about $1.3 billion. To fund the sale, $1.55 billion in debt was taken on the assumption that the land had more than doubled in value during the three years since LandSource's biggest asset, Newhall Land And Farming Co.'s 15,000 acres of mixed-use property 30 miles north of Los Angeles County, was bought.

LandSource's debt is labeled non-recourse, which is said to insulate Lennar and LNR from repercussions; but if the land ends up for sale in bankruptcy court, Lennar could lose access to the lots--one of the advantages it touted when announcing the sale last year.

Pali Capital analyst Stephen East suggested in a research note there is a possibility that the LandSource partners could be sued under "Bad Boy" clauses, claiming misrepresentations were made, since the deal deteriorated so rapidly.

"The bigger question for LEN is what remains for all the other JV's sitting out there," East wrote. "LandSource is one of the largest and most visible, but it could well be a harbinger of things to come. The cash burn so readily apparent in this JV is likely not unique."

If the bankruptcy occurs and the banks come out as well or better than they would have by renegotiating the loan, "We believe it would encourage a stiffer spine at the banks in future negotiations--signaling tougher times ahead for LEN and all other aggressive users of JV's," East wrote.

http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/industry-news-print.asp?sectionID=363&articleID=696870

A question is why, in 2007, would anyone think that was a golden time for building large residential communities in Southern California?

 

[whighlander]

Re: Columbus Center

I'd immediately send an emissary to Dubai

They used to say "Fly, Buy, Dubai" -- let's change it to "Fly, Sell Boston, Dubai"

I'd tell them -- we'll sell you the Pike from Copley Place to I-93 and including the "the Mother of All Interchanges" -- you build on it

Westy

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

No news on Columbus Center

South End News ? Thursday, June 26, 2008 ? by Managing Editor Linda Rodriguez ? http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=76457

While the official word is that there is no news on the beleaguered Columbus Center project, residents around the now-stalled construction site are becoming increasingly frustrated.

?We feel like we?re running into a brick wall and no one really cares, no one really cares about what happens to Cortes Street,? said Artie Rice, a resident of the street and a member of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association. Cortes Street, a small street of brownstones, has overlooked the vast, empty site of the Columbus Center project since March of this year, when the project?s developers (a complicated partnership between the local Winn Development, investment group CalPERS and MacFarlane Partners) requested an 18-month moratorium on its construction.

Though various officials, from Mayor Thomas Menino to the head of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, have promised the residents that the Columbus Center situation will be sorted out shortly, Rice says he?s getting frustrated that nothing seems to be happening. Said Rice, ?They think there are people here that really don?t count for much.?

In April, following the developers? request for the construction moratorium, residents of Bay Village and Cortes Street played host to visits from Menino, District 2 City Councilor Bill Linehan, John Palmieri, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and other city officials, who all promised to rectify the situation. At a May 27 meeting with residents, Alan LeBovidge, director of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which leases the land to the developers, said that the MTA would make a decision on the moratorium request in about a month. During a June 4 meeting of the Metropolitan Highway System Advisory Board, Stephen Hines of the MTA said that the agency was in discussions with the developers about the proposed moratorium and that they are ?open to granting that period, as long as certain conditions are met.?

But MTA spokesman Mac Daniel said that there is nothing new to report on the situation. And residents of the street say that there has been little to no communication from any official sources about the giant construction pit, which is surrounded by green hurricane fencing, in their front yards.

?It?s been a month. Time keeps going along now. We?re getting the feeling that no one really cares about us now. There was the big show with the Mayor and Linehan ... [but] the site is still a pit,? said Rice. ?No one?s responding to it at all and we just get a feeling here that?s the way its going to be. We?re just a handful of people.?

Though construction on the Columbus Center project began in November 2007, the developers asked for the 18-month moratorium on construction, citing concerns about their finances and ?capital structure,? in late March. Since then, the construction site has seen minimal activity as the developers have scrambled to find funding for the $800 million project in harsh economic times. George Regan, acting spokesman for Winn Development, described the loss of funding as a ?perfect storm of financing,? and said that the developer is still working on finding funding.

?It?s not going to be done overnight,? he said. Regan also said that he had no idea when the MTA may be issuing a decision on the requested moratorium. As far as the plight of the residents whose homes overlook the dormant construction site, he said, ?We?re working on some plans right now. We?re very cognizant of the neighborhood concerns.?

Regan declined to provide details about what those plans might be, saying, ?Obviously, we don?t want to speak without thinking, so, we?re working very hard on some ideas.?

In the meantime, the developers hired Project Place, a South End-based nonprofit that works with homeless and formerly homeless individuals, to do minimal clean up on the site. Councilor Linehan?s office has also been involved in trying to get resident parking signs put back on the street, but as yet, the signs have not gone up. While residents say that?s all a step in the right direction, it?s not enough.

?What are they going to do here to clean this place up and make it livable?? asked Rice. Moreover, he says, given the recent mismanagement around the project, he?s concerned that it is permanently stalled.

?Theoretically, there?s a chance it?ll never get built, it?ll just be sitting there and sitting there,? said Rice.