Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

^^ Good point on the ramp workers, but also consider that their exposure is at best 8 hours a day, and none of them are exposed to jets at take-off, or a line of 15-20 jet aircraft idling on a taxiway prior to take-off.

The point I'm trying to make here is, with or without Columbus Center, Ned and his neighbors may be exposed to some other risk-factors. No one's gonna mistake Joe Shortsleeve for Ed Murrow, but if the state Health Department has been running a study for a decade, it's something that deserves some attention.

And though the report references Winthrop and low-level overflights, all of the footage in WBZ's report was shot in Orient Heights, less than a quarter mile from my home. The only overflight of Winthrop is via water approached/departures on runway 9/27, over Point Shirley.

I imagine van's gonna split this discussion off -- I hope Ned posts, and follows the discussion, as this is a subject I believe is important to him.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Let's all take a step back and look at this project from a distance...

It is quickly becoming a reality that building over the Mass Pike is financially infeasible without massive public support. See the Prudential Center and Copley Place.

Let's opine that Columbus Center fails - which I can't see happening. It's ready to go and some other developer (with this kind of experience) can pick up the reigns and easily run with it once the market comes around .

But - let's pretend Columbus Center fails. It's failure will only solidify the view that the Turnpike air-rights are not build-able.

Now, the huge waste of money/time/resources known as the "Turnpike Air Rights Master Plan" will have to be discarded. Every developer from coast-to-coast will now say "you can't do business there - even if they offer you grants, they'll just yank them away. The neighbors are nuts, the costs are too high, and it's just not worth it."

The traffic sewer will remain, the MTA will continue on its march towards bankruptcy and then one day a politician will hold a press conference on the Dartmouth Street bridge and call for massive public subsidy to deck the pike - hundreds of millions of dollars to get the highway scar repaired. In exchange? Developers will be allowed to build even more massive, dense, and ultimately profitable developments.

The Mass Pike Air Rights Master Plan? A laughable little exercise to keep the population feeling like they are involved. Throw it out. It won't work, and at this point will just be a silly dream of 20 years past. In 2018, we will come to the conclusion that our tax money is going to be needed to do what private developers would have done for us. So we'll have to deck and prepare the parcels before a developer will be dumb enough to do business there.

This is why everyone - the city, the MTA, the BRA - wants Columbus Center to work. It's failure will become the failure of all Mass Pike air rights development.

So, looking long-term, Columbus Center's failure will be to the advantage of all future air rights developers - ironic. It will destroy all of the credibility and bargaining power that the MTA currently has in these situations.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Well, the appropriate person to ask about air rights development is Mr Rosenthal, then. If he can build down the Pike without public finances, then it would mean perhaps that others should be able to, as well.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

The only thing Mr Rosenthal has built above the Pike so far is a billboard.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Federal and state agencies tackling I-90 particulate matter[/size] ● As I?ve been urging and predicting for the last year, federal and state agencies soon will be measuring the public health risks to Boston residents whose jobs or homes expose them to coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate matter.

[size=+1]U.S. NIH studying particulate matter from Columbus Center to South Bay[/size] ● On 18 June 2008, the U.S. National Institutes of Health awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University to collect specific data along the I-90/I-93 corridors that would more closely estimate illness and death rates nationwide. In particular, the grant will study particulate matter air pollution stretching from the Columbus Center site to I-93.

This grant was awarded because the large and growing body of scientific evidence shows that EPA?s current regulatory levels don?t include the ambient pollution that?s most harmful, and because evidence shows that people working or living within a few blocks of I-90/I-93 suffer more hazardous exposure than indicated by regional pollution averages. It?s already known that ultrafine particulate matter (which is not yet regulated) is more harmful to public health than coarse or fine particulate matter (which is regulated), but MTA has never disclosed how much worse is the ultrafine matter air coming from MTA?s corridors today (compared to coarse and fine particulate matter), versus how much worse it will be when exhausted in concentrated form through vents that are existing, underway, or planned. Now the NIH is addressing that gap.

[size=+1]Mass. Department of Public Health mapping and measuring particulate matter[/size] ● Next week the state legislature is expected to pass a new law requiring the Department of Public Health to map pollution locations, comprehensively assess the health impacts, and evaluate health risks within various populations. The new law appears to cover illness rates in communities affected by Logan Airport, as well as illness among people who work or live in communities along the I-90/I-93 corridors.

[size=+1]Forum reactions[/size] ● Many of the apologists for the real estate industry are likely to dismiss both efforts, because their interests are more narrowly focused on their own immediate profit pockets than on public health. But for society at large, and especially anyone who works or lives near the corridors, nothing should be built unless it addresses the findings from these two agencies.

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

The new law appears to cover illness rates in communities affected by Logan Airport...

...But for society at large, and especially anyone who works or lives near the corridors, nothing should be built unless it addresses the findings from these two agencies.

^^ Thanks Ned -- You're sounding an awful lot like an opponent of Logan's center-field taxiway. A shame you didn't raise your voice ten years ago; the project is currently under construction.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

[SIZE=+1]Federal and state agencies tackling I-90 particulate matter[/SIZE] ● As I?ve been urging and predicting for the last year, federal and state agencies soon will be measuring the public health risks to Boston residents whose jobs or homes expose them to coarse, fine, and ultrafine particulate matter.

[SIZE=+1]U.S. EPA studying particulate matter from Columbus Center to South Bay[/SIZE] ● On 18 June 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University to collect specific data along the I-90/I-93 corridors that would more closely estimate illness and death rates nationwide. In particular, the grant will study particulate matter air pollution stretching from the Columbus Center site to I-93.

This grant was awarded because the large and growing body of scientific evidence shows that EPA?s current regulatory levels don?t include the ambient pollution that?s most harmful, and because evidence shows that people working or living within a few blocks of I-90/I-93 suffer more hazardous exposure than indicated by regional pollution averages. It?s already known that ultrafine particulate matter (which is not yet regulated) is more harmful to public health than coarse or fine particulate matter (which is regulated), but MTA has never disclosed how much worse is the ultrafine matter air coming from MTA?s corridors today (compared to coarse and fine particulate matter), versus how much worse it will be when exhausted in concentrated form through vents that are existing, underway, or planned. Now the EPA is addressing that gap.

[SIZE=+1]Mass. Department of Public Health mapping and measuring particulate matter[/SIZE] ● Next week the state legislature is expected to pass a new law requiring the Department of Public Health to map pollution locations, comprehensively assess the health impacts, and evaluate health risks within various populations. The new law appears to cover illness rates in communities affected by Logan Airport, as well as illness among people who work or live in communities along the I-90/I-93 corridors.

[SIZE=+1]Forum reactions[/SIZE] ● Many of the apologists for the real estate industry are likely to dismiss both efforts, because their interests are more narrowly focused on their own immediate profit pockets than on public health. But for society at large, and especially anyone who works or lives near the corridors, nothing should be built unless it addresses the findings from these two agencies.

Ned, cease the editorializing and get your facts correct.

There is no EPA grant, it is a NIH grant. The study area is far broader then your neighborhood.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112138.php

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Forum reactions[/size] ● Many of the apologists for the real estate industry are likely to dismiss both efforts, because their interests are more narrowly focused on their own immediate profit pockets than on public health.

You are implying that the members of this forum are "real estate industry apologists".
This has been proven false time and time again. Please stop.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Rosenthal has built nothing - in about a decade - with his air rights. His plan now includes putting (drum roll please) concrete parking garages over the pike. The buildings are in the vacant parking lots.

Remember Boylston Square? How'd that go? - and again, the revenue-producing tower was placed on flat land next to the highway.

Hmmm... wasn't the master plan completed in 1999? Almost ten years later has the traffic sewer been covered? Anywhere? Even the developments on the little ramps downtown can't make a go of it, and they only have to build on much smaller bridge-decks.

If Columbus Center fails, the word in the investment community will be loud and clear - you can't build on the Pike, ever, don't bother.

The MTA is desperate to make this work - air rights is their holy grail - they can't make tolls $5 in Allston and raise other tolls to $15 - there's a limit until we're all driving on Route 9.

This is why Columbus Center -maybe with a different developer - will happen as planned. If they can't make a go of it with Winn, they'll elbow him out and bring in a Hines or Boston Properties, or somebody with the sophistication and portfolio to complete the job. But it'll get done - as is.

The don't-block-my-view-elitists may think they're onto something with this UFP angle, but to the rest of us it's just good for a laugh. Yeah, it's a city, the air is "city-like" we know.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . wasn't the master plan completed in 1999?

No, it wasn?t. After it was adopted in 2000, the Turnpike Master Plan?s first full year was 2001.

. . . If Columbus Center fails, the word in the investment community will be loud and clear - you can't build on the Pike, ever, don't bother.

No, it won?t be. By the time that Columbus Center?s failure becomes official (a few more years hence), there will be two words in the investment community (but not what you assume):
? DO imitate John Rosenthal?s business practices, because he succeeded.
? DON?T forget that CalPERS-CUIP-MURC?s losses proved that due diligence is critical.

. . . If they can't make a go of it with Winn, they'll elbow him out . . .

Winn sold Columbus Center ? both the proposal and the company ? on 15 March 2006, so the person you imagine ?elbowing out? has been gone for 2.25 years already. Several of the former owners now are contractors to the new owners, who already call all the shots, so no elbowing is necessary.

. . . The don't-block-my-view-elitists may think they're onto something with this UFP angle . . .

No one on this forum, or anywhere else in Boston, is criticizing Columbus Center for blocked views. And no one ever did. It seems you got your proposals mixed up.

The existence of particulate matter air pollution ? and the public health impacts, and the maps of the affected communities along both corridors ? are all being addressed now by U.S. NIH and Mass. DPH. For anyone who still doubts, they?ll soon confirm that particulate matter is far more than an ?angle?.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

You are implying that the members of this forum are "real estate industry apologists". This has been proven false . . .

Don?t be upset; there?s nothing to worry about; re-read, and you?ll see: I never implied anything at all about the forum members (meaning all of them), because the forum is diverse groups of hobbyists, students, urban planners, real estate industry gravy-trainers, and others. What I did imply is that among the apologists, many of them will dismiss the new particulate matter studies (just as they have always done).

If you have any trouble spotting who I mean, look for the ones who:

defend Columbus Center unilaterally;
insist that everything?s just fine;
deny that anything is wrong;
do not care that the subsidy applications are fraudulent;
forget that over 13 years no banker loaned even one dollar;
still refer to what transpired last October - March as ?construction?;
and
dismiss the empty work site as nothing more than a mere ?market? blip.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Re: Columbus Center

I think most everyone defends Columbus Center unilaterally. The project epitomizes the urbanity that archboston forum members seek out. It's clear that you're simply a south end [person] on a mission, the goal of which is clearly clouded by confounded personal reasons.

 

[atlantaden]

Re: Columbus Center

Don?t be upset; there?s nothing to worry about; re-read, and you?ll see: I never implied anything at all about the forum members (meaning all of them), because the forum is diverse groups of hobbyists, students, urban planners, real estate industry gravy-trainers, and others. What I did imply is that among the apologists, many of them will dismiss the new particulate matter studies (just as they have always done).

If you have any trouble spotting who I mean, look for the ones who:

defend Columbus Center unilaterally;
insist that everything?s just fine;
deny that anything is wrong;
do not care that the subsidy applications are fraudulent;
forget that over 13 years no banker loaned even one dollar;
still refer to what transpired last October - March as ?construction?;
and
dismiss the empty work site as nothing more than a mere ?market? blip.

There are two phrases that come to mind here, the first is.."don't shoot the messenger." After reading post after endless post from Ned, I totally understand why this happened in ancient times. Especially when the messenger.... gloated. The second..."dancing on the grave," can also conjer up images that are more unpleasant as the one who has recently been buried.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Winn, Stat and Ned:

The juxtaposition of "Forum Reactions" and "apologists" makes it look like Ned was slamming our crew. The people who post here seem real; I can't name anyone who is false.

Mr. Developer Winn, looks like you can't get it done. Your wheedling for more public cash, that shows its time for you to go.

There's nothing wrong with putting up money, but what's our vig? There are folks out there suffering, who need education, who need cops so kids aren't getting shot in some drive by. Winn, you've got to put up more than more house maid jobs and bigger rags for shoeshine boys. Otherwise, make way.

If you've got a good deal for us, Winn shout it out now. If not, Toby will loan you a harmonica and an old tin cup. Go sing yer blues somewhere else.

Toby

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Well, I have to say, I defend this project unilaterally, that much is true. It is not for selfish reasons, although some people have argued otherwise (including Mr Flaherty, himself, in a phone call to me, several months ago).

I don't plan on selling a unit in any building ever built on that spot; and, if I do, it offends me that someone would think I'd let my opinion be biased due to a paycheck of $10 or $20 thousand dollars.

I support just about every development project. To me, it's more like "Yes, let's build it, tell me why we shouldn't," unlike some people in this town whose first response is always, "No," and leave it at that, without any reasonable explanation except they wish the downtown Boston neighborhoods to remain the way they looked over a hundred and thirty years ago.

At times I, and perhaps other pro-development people, can be rightly accused of "unilateral" reactions. I just feel that I put a lot more thought into seeing the "other side" than the "other side" does my side.

w/e, you know what I mean.

 

[a630]

Re: Columbus Center

oh and the problem will be so effectively mitigated: for example, by ubiquitous ominous signage!



i have to say, it hasn't kept me out of parking garages, because i need to park, though gas prices did work, though that only led me to run into these signs in transit stations. it didn't keep me away from work because i need to work, or my friend's apartment building (there's a rumor it was constructed before 1980). thankfully i'm out of grade school, so i haven't had to think of the perils of walking those halls. it hasn't kept me out of the library. not LAX. though maybe if they put a giant one on the sun it'd keep me off the beach?
maybe the sun would get a categorical exemption because fine particulates have in fact had a dimming effect ...? limiting the impact without changing the nature of the use, i think that's how CEQA puts it.
anyway, i figure it all works out in the end. everyone who loses a job in real estate can work for an environmental consultant writing EIRs fatter than a phone book or getting people to sign props for more signs.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Wilkerson: Columbus Center not seeking public subsidy[/size]

by Linda Rodriguez ● managing editor ● Thursday Jul 10, 2008

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=77215

The developers of the Columbus Center are not seeking public subsidy to jumpstart the stalled project, State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson told South End News July 9.

Wilkerson said that she?s been meeting with the developers of the massive project since they requested an 18-month moratorium construction from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the holders of the land lease, in March. At no point have they discussed additional public subsidy for the project, she said. ?My considerations have been ?What are we going to? Is there a remedy? Is there an answer? Is there a way to get back on track??? she said. ?If there is, we should know soon and if there isn?t, we should know sooner.?

On July 2, the Boston Globe published an article indicating that the developers of the Columbus Center were in meetings with Wilkerson to ?push for additional taxpayer assistance? for the project. Alan Eisner, longtime spokesman for the developers, confirmed to the Globe that developers were meeting with Wilkerson to discuss public subsidy; the reporter was unable to reach Wilkerson. However, a July 7 Banker & Tradesman article quoted Wilkerson, who said that the developers were not discussing possible public subsidies with her. In that article, Eisner is quoted as saying that meetings with Wilkerson did not focus on any more taxpayer assistance.

Contacted on July 8, Eisner said that in the wake of the two recent articles, the developers are no longer commenting. ?What?s happened because of all these articles, I think the developers at this point really aren?t going to comment in the press any more,? he said. ?There?s been a lot of distortion of our positions; for the time being our standard response is going to be, ?No comment.??

Wilkerson, speaking to the South End News, said that discussions with the developers have been about how the developers can ?shore up? and how they can move forward in a way that doesn?t require the city or the state ?to write a big check.? ?There has been what I think an aggressive series of discussions on both the city and state level, but it hasn?t been about how we can get more money,? she said.

The Columbus Center project was proposed more than a decade ago, as a way to reunite the South End and Back Bay. At that time, the cost of the luxury condominium-hotel high-rise complex, to be built on a deck constructed over the Turnpike was an estimated $300 million; since then, the rising cost of construction has inflated the cost to more than $800 million. Wilkerson lays some of the blame for the delay - and therefore continually increasing price - with the Turnpike Authority. As of now, the Turnpike?s lease with the Columbus Center developers remains in limbo after the moratorium caused several amendments to it to be withdrawn from consideration. Over the course of the project?s lifetime, the Turnpike Authority also saw three different directors overseeing lease negotiations.

?This dramatic increase in the project cost over the last few years has come as a result of the musical chairs at Mass Turnpike. They are all critical players, but we?ve gone through three directors,? she said. ?There?s been little focus at the helm.?

Wilkerson said that she believes the focus right now is figuring out whether or not the project will be able to take off, adding that she thinks developers are close to an answer. ?I think this limbo ... is just unfair,? she said, especially to the residents of the streets surrounding the project. ?I think [the residents have] been incredibly patient for the duration of this project, but I think they?re growing increasingly anxious while we try to figure out what?s going on.?

Residents have been anxious about the seeming inaction on the site; in a June 26 South End News article, one resident said that he felt as if the city and state didn?t care about the people on his street (see ?No News on Columbus Center,? June 26). Though construction on the Columbus Center project began in November 2007, the developers asked for the 18-month moratorium on construction in late March, citing concerns about their finances and ?capital structure.? Since then, the construction site, swathed in green hurricane fencing, has been virtually abandoned, as the developers have scrambled to find funding for the $800 million project in harsh economic times.

At a May 27 meeting with the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, Turnpike Authority director Alan LeBovidge told residents that the Turnpike would be making a decision on whether or not to grant the construction moratorium within a month. Mac Daniel, spokesman for the Turnpike Authority, said that the Turnpike is still in talks with the developers over the terms of the moratorium.

?Alan LeBovidge said he hoped to get back to [the Bay Village residents] within a month with an answer and obviously, negotiations have not allowed us to do that yet,? he said, adding that the Turnpike is hopeful that the project will recover.

In the mean time, a few clean up efforts on the street have already been realized, although Cortes Street residents have reported recently that the site is becoming a de facto dump for local trash. The developers are still employing Project Place, the South End-based nonprofit that provides jobs for homeless and formerly homeless individuals, to keep the site clean. A resident parking only sign, another concern of the residents, will also be restored to the street this week, according to the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Eisner declined to comment on any clean up or mitigation efforts the developers may be undertaking for the residents of Cortes and Isabella streets, adding that they won?t comment ?until there?s something constructive to say.?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+1]Ousted chief?s love of huge deals yielded big flop[/size]

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1106826

By Scott Van Voorhis ● Monday, July 14, 2008

Business Reporter Scott Van Voorhis brings 15 years of aggressive reporting to a wide range of topics that affect the Hub's business community and residents.

Developers like to build big. But the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority would probably do better to think small when it comes to its ambitious air-rights development plans, critics say.

The cash-strapped highway authority has spent years working with an array of developers to build grand projects over key stretches of the Turnpike?s canyon-like Boston extension.

But the Turnpike has little to show for its efforts. And that is prompting some real estate executives to question the authority?s strategy.

Overall, the Turnpike has spent too much time focusing on complicated, big-ticket projects, and too little time on smaller, more manageable ventures that might have produced quicker returns.

The most glaring example is former Turnpike chief Matt Amorello?s proposal for a massive skyscraper complex on authority-owned land near South Station.

Dubbing it ?South Bay,? the Turnpike in 2004 put out to bid its Kneeland Street headquarters and neighboring highway-crossed sites for more than $100 million.

The former Pike chief - ousted two years later after the deadly collapse of a Big Dig tunnel - even unveiled a splashy plan for a 50-story tower and millions of square feet of new development on the site.

But as they played up South Bay, Amorello and other Pike officials kept developers seeking to build on other, authority-owned lots near North Station cooling their heels for years.

In the end, it was the so-called Bulfinch Triangle sites that paid off, with one complex now under construction and others on the way.

But South Bay turned out to be an embarrassing flop, attracting just one bidder with no mega-development experience. No deal was ever struck and the Turnpike at the moment has no plans to put the site back out to bid, said Mac Daniel, the Pike?s spokesman.

?They worked on that South Bay plan. I thought it was foolish,? said David Begelfer, head of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. ?That project is a future project. The market is not there yet.?

The Turnpike has also spent years on plans for other giant air-rights projects that show no signs of returns any time soon.

Despite past failures, the Turnpike is forging ahead with its efforts to turn air-rights development sites in Boston into cash.

For example, the Turnpike is now preparing to put out to bid a pair of small air-rights parcels in Charlestown, as well as retail space in a new garage near Government Center.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

^^Oh, the horror of UFPs in the Bullfinch Triangle, people will fall over dead after breathing just a whiff of the toxic air.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

Scott points out one important point, that Boston lacks ambitious developers that gets thing done. I believe that, in most other big cities, projects of these magnitude can be done more quickly an yield more result than any small projects. Sadly, Boston's slow process and the enormous power that NIMBYs hold prevent any developers, no matter how ambitious and experienced, from coming to Boston and building something worthwile. It's like a curse. Before you know it, the curse will last longer than the Curse of the Bambino. Maybe we will get a real skyscraper 86 years after the JHT was built.