Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[pharmerdave]

Re: Columbus Center

^ If New Jersey can do it, why can't we.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers
by John Keith, South End News Contributor

An opportunity to stitch back together a deep tear in the urban fabric was lost with the failed Columbus Center project, the proposed $800 million, mixed-use complex to be built on decks constructed over the Massachusetts Turnpike. After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else. It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.

How could this possibly happen? How could a project that was so far along in the process unravel at the last minute, after construction had already started?

There is plenty of blame to spread around, beginning with the company that first proposed the development.

It looks as though Arthur Winn and his WinnDevelopment never secured the money needed to complete the project. According to published reports, the developer missed two deadlines earlier this year by which it was supposed to have proved to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority that it had raised $500 million (it did prove it had at least half that). But, trouble was brewing long before then.

Back in 1996, the developer proposed a subsidy-free project, but soon after it received its first approvals, it began reaching out for taxpayer money. Meanwhile, its financing began to fall apart. Major investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew more than $500 million in commitments as early as 2006. The next year, the real estate subsidiary run by investment partner CalPERS (now "owner of record" on the project and "leasee" of the Turnpike air rights lease) threatened to pull out unless the state guaranteed public assistance. In early 2007, the developers came to the state asking for help; but by April 2008, they hit a brick wall, failing to make it to round two in their quest for a $10 million MORE (Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion) grant. Not long after, MassHousing, the state?s affordable housing agency, withdrew its promise of another $20 million. When asked, the city of Boston, which had already committed $14 million in incentives and tax credits, said, "No more."

Meanwhile, at the same time it was knocking on doors in search of funds, the developer faced a rapidly increasing budget, due to rising labor and material costs. The project had an estimated cost of $300 million when it was proposed in 1996, but that has ballooned to the now estimated $800 million. It sure didn?t help things when the credit crisis hit the commercial markets and residential real estate sales imploded.

If Mr. Winn had been able to pull things together, it would have been possible to ignore the constant drone of complaints from a small but vocal group of residents, neighbors and politicians, and we wouldn?t be having this conversation. But, he didn?t, it wasn?t, and we are.

The Columbus Center was more than just "luxury condos." It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks - the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much - their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

Blame also lies at the feet of our local elected officials. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, South End State Representative Byron Rushing and Back Bay State Representative Marty Walz each spoke out against public financing for Columbus Center, in effect dooming its chances to move forward. Ironically, at the same time they were expressing astonishment at the very idea of public funds going to a private company, they were supporting legislation that handed out millions (actually, billions) of dollars in subsidies to other projects across the Commonwealth.

For example, Reps. DiMasi and Walz approved $60 million in state spending and incentives to help "persuade" drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb to move to Massachusetts. They?ve both heaped praise on the Massachusetts film-credit incentive program, which the Department of Revenue estimates has cost the state $120 million over the past three years. And just this spring, all three voted in favor of the $1 billion life sciences bill, which authorizes $500 million in borrowed capital spending, an additional $250 million in grants, and another $250 million in tax incentives.

Yet, when it came to helping out someone in their own backyard, our representatives defied logic and suddenly clammed up and clamped down. It?s all well and good to argue against public subsidies on principle, but don?t pull it out as an excuse only when it?s politically expedient or personally beneficial.

What have residents lost, as a result of the project?s failure? Property tax revenues (eventually; the city had promised forgiveness of much of it during the first years), jobs, homes, parks, parking spaces and the conveniences of local shops, for starters. In addition, WinnDevelopment would have been required to include affordable-housing units as part of any new construction or make a significant financial payment into the city?s low-cost housing fund. These community benefits are all gone.

But, this is all water under the bridge, or decks, as it were. I, for one, have given up on the project. One small request, though. Mr. Winn, don?t feel any rush to clean up your construction site; please leave it as is - an enduring testament to the lost chances and broken dreams that define the development process in Boston in the 21st century.

John Keith is a resident of the South End and a real estate broker. Read his blog at bostonREB.com. Matt Byrne contributed to this column.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Very wry.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Well-reasoned, well-thought, and well-written.

Once capital becomes available, some developer (hopefully one with deep pockets and an actual history of these types of projects - like BP or Hines) buys the rights to this site for nickels on the dollar and builds it out. I also hope that this new developer rescinds many of the costly neighborhood perks as a contingency of buying.

Leaving the site a scarred, construction-fence barricaded disaster is a very good idea - it'll help increase the value of the development site - just restore the parking.

Oddly enough, by stalling development, the anti-progress neighbors/obstructionists have essentially lost all of their leverage here, and the pendulum has swung back into the developer's favor.

 

[archboston]

Re: Columbus Center

Leaving the site a scarred, construction-fence barricaded disaster is a very good idea - it'll help increase the value of the development site - just restore the parking.

The parking on Cortes was restored over a month ago, after the BVNA made some noise with the city.


I have to assume that the recommendation to leave the site as-is was done a bit tongue-in-cheek. It's easy to make that recommendation when you don't live across the street from it.

Columbus Center debris on one side, a proposed multi-billion dollar MBTA bus terminal on the other... Bay Village is getting hammered by projects without adequate financing or forethought.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Columbus Center

Cortes Street supported the development. It's not at all fair to the residents there to leave a mess behind.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Can someone take a picture of the "mess" on Cortes St....it's hard for me to visualize how their ideallyic view of the Pike has been somehow marred to the point that it's not longer the scenic overlook it once was.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

The Columbus Center was more than just "luxury condos." It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks - the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much - their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

THANK YOU. See that Ned? The building was economically unfeasible to build. Screw your damn filters and screw your hypothetical profits that the developers could make. The fact stands. The building is unfeasible and building advance vents was impossible unless there were subsidies. Your "developers announced that they will make such and such amount of money" reason is moot. Do you understand why yet? That's because nothing in the future is predictable, just look at this project. During a downturn in the economy, the amount of profit or a developer could make and I stress the word could, is unstable. What happens if CC fails to attract enough tenants? What happen if every building material rises? How about labor? With the inflation in the USD, construction cost would rise. And here is the perfect example. They could build advance filters that can clean up the air (which by the way, no other place has it yet) but they can't, and do you know why? It is unfeasible to do so. It is also possible if the NIMBYs such as yourself, had not delay this project for 10 years by asking for this and that, that there would be enough money to build it and your advance vent filter that you have a crazy obsession with. Instead here you guys, an empty lot devoid of life. You could have so much amenities, a gym, a grocery store but nah, you enjoy your sandbox. Maybe you can make it like the BU "Beach" and pretend the cars going by are the waves crashing against the shore.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Re: Columbus Center

Maybe you can make it like the BU "Beach" and pretend the cars going by are the waves crashing against the shore.

Don't be bring BU Beach into this foray. A whole lotta fingerblasting's been done on that there beach in the past.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

I think this proves ... yes, Cortes Street is a "mess". There used to be a line of trees between the buildings and the Turnpike, for one thing.

 

[Dan]

Re: Columbus Center

That's because nothing in the future is predictable, just look at this project. During a downturn in the economy, the amount of profit or a developer could make and I stress the word could, is unstable. What happens if CC fails to attract enough tenants? What happen if every building material rises? How about labor? With the inflation in the USD, construction cost would rise.

I hear your concerns regarding NIMBY requirements making long-term profitability questionable.

But all developers should be prepared to weather short term ups and downs. If they can't, they shouldn't be in the business. Real Estate is a long term proposition.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

^^Requirements yes but not Ned's advance venting system is not a requirement for building C.C. Ned wished for an advance filtering system that cost a lot more money in installing and time for revisions on the design itself which C.C. would most likely not be able to cover the cost.

 

[sidewalks]

Kenmore Square

This may well be a 'be careful what you wish for' moment, but I'll ask the question anyway...

Ned, it appears that Columbus Center is stalled for the forseeable future, if not completely dead. But just a few miles down the turnpike another project is poised to unleash the same type of particulate pollution upon the unsuspecting inhabitants of the Fenway. You have repeatedly claimed that you are fighting Columbus Center on behalf of the public and that you would not move because that would simply subject another person to the same insidious pollution. If this is true, why have you limited your crusade to Columbus Center? Where is the outrage and the flood of newspaper articles, blog postings and public meeting appearances?

 

[tocoto]

Re: Columbus Center

I'm certainly no expert on particulate polluton but it would seem to me:

-the porous concrete walls of a tunnel would absorb a significant amount of the stuff making air cleaner outside the tunnel

-It would be simple matter to put a filter or scrubber on the exhaust system for any tunnel to remove most of the particulates resulting in cleaner air with a tunnel than without.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: what was known when existing tunnels were designed

. . . As for not enough being known about particulate matter when highway tunnels were being designed two, three, or even one decade ago, that is absolutely not true. There have been standards for particulate matter for decades. It boggles. . .

No need for your mind to get boggled by this, Stellarfun.

Ron Newman asked me how other urban highway tunnels deal with ultrafine particulate matter in their tunnels. I replied to him that existing tunnels were designed before ultrafine particulate matter was well understood, so remediation of it was skipped, not because the tunnels were designed before UFPs were first discovered (they weren?t), but because when the tunnels were designed years ago the 2008 technology did not exist.

The people designing those tunnels weren?t the people studying UFPs.

The tunnel designers said then ? and still say today ? that they themselves didn?t know ? and still don?t know ? enough about UFP to design for it. But that is changing.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: Statler?s comparison of SC&L to Columbus Center

We can split this thread a thousand times and it won't matter. This is the only thread Ned will ever visit and he will continue speak out against UFP's in this thread and this thread only.

You don?t know what threads I might visit. You don?t know what I might say when I get there.

I would love for Ned to see what we are doing in the SC&L thread and maybe even lend a hand with some of his media contacts.

Although I agree with the major objections to Druker?s SC&L proposal, there?s no need to add my voice there, since so many others are already working on that.

But in the unprecedented failure at Columbus Center, much of what went wrong has yet to be publicized, and remains unknown to the general public (including forum members). MTA intends to repeat its Columbus Center mistakes across all 23 air rights parcels.

I?m the only one who has come forward with all 15,000 pages of public records. There?s no one else showing journalists, legislators, government agencies, and the public where to look to see the evidence proving how things went awry and how history is poised to repeat itself. So keeping my knowledge and time focused on unresolved air rights issues instead of joining the SC&L chorus is, in the long run, far more preventive and productive.

As long as Drucker 'adheres to the principles', he can destroy the city all he wants and "urban activists" like Ned, won't issue so much as raise a peep.

Being from Salem and Washington, perhaps you don?t know that there are two sets of vastly different ?principles? involved at each of the two sites.

Across the state-owned transportation corridor, there is a 101-page Turnpike Master Plan, parcel by parcel, principle by principle. Plenty of people have spoken up about protecting, defending, and respecting it for 8 years, and are continuing to do so.

But there is no master plan that includes Druker?s SC&L site, so Boston?s usual approach is in effect:

● Every Zoning Code provision and waiver is for sale.
● The Zoning Board of Appeal lets developers write their own decisions.
● With the right ?campaign donation? to the right elected official, everything that is illegal gets re-labeled as legal.
● The Redevelopment Authority answers to no one but the mayor.
● The mayor always owns just enough city councilors to get whatever he wants from them.
● The mayor is owned by the developers who ?donate? to him before, during, and after their proposals; the 11% of voters who elected him are just dispensable afterthoughts.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[Size=+2]Big Dig oversight law could turn blind eye[/size]
By Hillary Chabot ? Tuesday, August 19, 2008

A new law aimed at preventing another Big Dig tunnel tragedy may not apply to privately developed projects yet to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike, a prospect that has those behind the legislation scrambling.

?For the highest-risk projects, this new bill would provide no oversight at all,? said Ned Flaherty, a neighborhood activist in the South End.

The new law, signed by Gov. Deval Patrick two weeks ago, compels state agencies to hire an independent engineer to oversee public construction projects in an effort to prevent another tragic tunnel collapse like the 2006 disaster that killed Milena Del Valle.

However, several private companies that lease air rights to develop over the Pike may not have to follow the new law, meaning several high-risk projects slated for Boston wouldn?t trigger the oversight.

?If that arises as an issue, we will put in corrective language,? said Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), one of the lead sponsors of the legislation. ?We won?t allow this law to be circumvented.?

Pike officials are currently reviewing the new law to see if it applies to private construction over the tollway. A representative of Inspector General Gregory Sullivan?s office, who worked with lawmakers to create the bill, said current oversight conducted by Pike officials would suffice.

But Flaherty argued state officials also oversaw Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff?s work on the Dig.

?The reason for having an owner?s representative is to make sure someone absolutely independent is checking the work on these projects,? Flaherty said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1113696

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Kenmore Square

. . . Ned . . . just a few miles down the turnpike another project is poised to unleash the same type of particulate pollution upon the unsuspecting inhabitants of the Fenway. You have repeatedly claimed . . . that you would not move because that would simply subject another person to the same insidious pollution. . .

No, I never said that. What I said ? in reply to you, at post #645, on 3 April ? was that I am staying to fix the problem, as opposed to running away from it:

?. . . my goal is to ensure that MTA, MBTA, CSX, and their many developers collectively remedy the UFP problem. . .
. . . whereas you prefer I go elsewhere, I prefer to stay here and solve the problem. . .
. . . if residents across the city choose to vent UFP pollution into their homes instead of curing it at the source, then I probably will move several blocks north or south.?

. . . Why have you limited your crusade to Columbus Center?

Although for 13 years, my work has been concentrated at Columbus Center, it was never ? and is not now ? restricted to just that. But, as the city?s longest running urban planning failure, this project?s story shall continue for quite some time.

. . .Where is the outrage and the flood of newspaper articles, blog postings and public meeting appearances?

They?ve been underway for years. Coverage and comments are expected from lots of voices and many sources. The review process hasn?t begun yet.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: what was known when existing tunnels were designed



No need for your mind to get boggled by this, Stellarfun.

Ron Newman asked me how other urban highway tunnels deal with ultrafine particulate matter in their tunnels. I replied to him that existing tunnels were designed before ultrafine particulate matter was well understood, so remediation of it was skipped, not because the tunnels were designed before UFPs were first discovered (they weren?t), but because when the tunnels were designed years ago the 2008 technology did not exist.

The people designing those tunnels weren?t the people studying UFPs.

The tunnel designers said then ? and still say today ? that they themselves didn?t know ? and still don?t know ? enough about UFP to design for it. But that is changing.

You have continued to postulate that technology to scrub UFPs from highway sources exists, and yet have not produced a single example of such technology being built and used, anywhere.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: Statler?s comparison of SC&L to Columbus Center


You don?t know what threads I might visit. You don?t know what I might say when I get there.

I also don't know if I'm going to win the lottery tonight but based on past experience I going come right out and say 'no'.

Although I agree with the major objections to Druker?s SC&L proposal, there?s no need to add my voice there, since so many others are already working on that.

None of the others seem to have the media contacts (or at least the ability to get their say in the papers) that you have. It's a compliment to you Ned. You are very good at what you do.

Being from Salem and Washington, perhaps you[...]

You may have me confused with someone else.