Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

*My head hurts* You're using semantics to avoid the real issue. . .

Firstly, ?semantics? is the study of meaning in communication, and the study of interpretation of signs in narrow social groups. _ How could my study of the developers? code words and euphemisms avoid ?the real issue?? _ And what is that issue, please?

Secondly, it?s unlikely that someone else?s study ? of the developers? words ? could create an ache ? in your head ? but if you?re sure that?s what?s happening, then just stop reading and you should feel better.

What do you suppose the motivation for the consultants, Beal and Related (who are building a nearby high-rise), to conclude that the major barrier to Columbus Center is the cost of tunneling?

These consultants run a for-profit business, so profit is their general motive for everything. _ But no one can assume any specific motive behind their blaming of the project?s failure on tunnel costs, because:_ (a) the consultants aren?t done consulting, and (b) they haven?t disclosed their data.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . "reporting" to the Back Bay Sun means, "taking some guy's quotes and just repeating them, without checking their accuracy."

On 13 December 2007 the Boston Globe reported that the bank loans ? which the project owners had claimed for several years in multiple public subsidy applications ? never even existed at all.

Since then, there?s been no lack of accuracy by the Back Bay Sun ? or any other media outlet. _ Instead, each latest news report typically contains withdrawals, changes, and denials of facts from previous recent reports, often in the same newspaper, often by the same reporter. _ The only change is that people are noticing it now more than before.

What you incorrectly perceive as media inaccuracy is not a failure of any reporter or any newspaper. _ It is the project?s owners ? the CalPERS spokeswoman, the MacFarlane spokesman, the 4th Boston public relations team, the two new cost-cutting consultants, the Winn executives who for years refused most inquiries and since 8 July refused all inquiries ? regularly contradicting each other, reversing themselves, casually telling a new story at every turn.

Historic example over the last 5 years:
? On 15 May 2003, their proposal portrayed the project as permanently subsidy-free.
? On 29 June 2006, they admitted to the Boston Globe that huge subsidies had been secretly planned ?from the get-go? in 1996.

Latest example over the last 3 weeks:
? On 3 September, they told the Boston Globe their viability report was due mid-October.
? On 17 September, they told BRA officials and the public it was due 15 November.
? On 24 September, they told the South End News it was due 31 December.

No one should be surprised when, come late December, they move the deadline ? which they themselves chose ? to January.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . CC is a different project from other buildings . . . No matter what or who develops the project, it will always be different.

Neither I nor anyone else ever said Columbus Center was the same as any other project. _ Your statement is unnecessary and pointless.

. . . it will cost more even if the Clarendon was the same size and design. . . give us proof that building a tower over air rights is more expensive than over land. . .

You and the other forum members who periodically repeat this argument still haven?t recognized the difference between ?cost of construction? and ?total cost of development?, which suggests perhaps you?re a student or hobbyist, or perhaps a lobbyist or public relations word-smither. _ But no matter what your background, interest, training, or experience, you could begin to understand this issue, and the fallacy in your thinking so far, by re-reading message 1278 on 21 August.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Post #1278 is a gross (mis)simplication.

The most glaring fallacy to your post is that you fail to recognize that their is value to owning the land as opposed to just air rights, and the benefits of that land. That is to say there are building systems that are easier to place into the ground that integrate into the building, but the biggest factor of course is the inability to use below grade space at Columbus Center for parking, mechanical rooms, storage, etc.

Due to height restricitions, a developer only has so much above ground buildable sq. ft. (or volume if you want to be more exact) allowed at that site, and they have to provide for parking in that above ground total. Before you tell me how the parking is profitable, consider that if they could locate the garage below grade AND replace the parking garage with additional residential or commercial development, that it would increase the value of this project.

So no Ned, you haven't proven to the simple student or hobbyist that "Total Cost of Development" is lower over the turnpike than over land.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . their is value to owning the land as opposed to just air rights . . . building systems . . . the inability to use below grade space . . . you haven't proven to the simple student or hobbyist that "Total Cost of Development" is lower over the turnpike than over land.

Had you pulled the 15,000 pages of public records, you?d know that each and every issue which you assume got overlooked ? land value, system location, parking, etc. ? was already accounted for long ago. _ All those factors already play their appropriate roles in the formula, and the formula showed long ago that total development cost for a given building in Boston air rights is cheaper than the same building on land.

This fact can?t be illustrated for anyone who doesn?t have ? and refuses to get ? the data that?s needed for the comparison. _ But that doesn?t mean it?s not a fact. _ It only means that the classroom where the fact is being presented is ill-equipped, and the students ill-prepared.

 

[nico]

Re: Columbus Center

And that's a 10 count.

 

[tommym96]

Re: Columbus Center

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

Neither I nor anyone else ever said Columbus Center was the same as any other project. _ Your statement is unnecessary and pointless.

No your statement was pointless. We are the one who said it was different. It was you who said it was the same and that CC would not cost more than a tower that is built on the ground.

You and the other forum members who periodically repeat this argument still haven?t recognized the difference between ?cost of construction? and ?total cost of development?, which suggests perhaps you?re a student or hobbyist, or perhaps a lobbyist or public relations word-smither. _ But no matter what your background, interest, training, or experience, you could begin to understand this issue, and the fallacy in your thinking so far, by re-reading message 1278 on 21 August.

Your post on 1278 states that building on the air is negligible. That pretty much contradict the fact that capping the highway the most cost prohibitive aspect of the project. And you seem to have assume that all a building requires is decking over the turnpike which you state is negligible. So what about the cost of a ventilation system, especially a high-tech one that you wish to build? How about the limited amount of time to do construction which will increase cost due to the increase time needed to rent construction vehicles? They can't just close that section of pike for hours. How about restructuring the walls on the pike so that it can hold up the tower? These are the total cost you speak of. This cost more than just digging a hole and putting beams into it.

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: Columbus Center

Secondly, it?s unlikely that someone else?s study ? of the developers? words ? could create an ache ? in your head ? but if you?re sure that?s what?s happening, then just stop reading and you should feel better.

You're making my head hurt by responding in your typically encyclopaedic-dry writing style to a comment clearly meant in a facetious manner. I respectfully suggest you stop reading thousands upon thousands of public documents and get to a bar immediately so as to remind yourself of how the rest of the world communicates, e.g. with emotions.

 

[riffgo]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned is obviously a very good writer, but he thinks the rest of the world communicates in his own pedantic style.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . capping the highway . . . decking . . . ventilation . . . high-tech . . . limited amount of time . . . rent construction vehicles . . . restructuring the walls . . . cost more than just digging a hole and putting beams into it.

A valid comparison considers every possible factor, considers each factor only once, and considers no factor twice.

All the factors in your latest list were already accounted for in the 120-page, multi-year analysis by an accredited, nationally recognized property appraiser. _ Because you still don?t realize that they?ve already been accounted for, you keep trying to count them again, which makes your comparison invalid. _ No factor you could mention would support your argument, because every applicable factor is already in the equation. _With every factor already present and accounted for, there?s no factor that you or anyone else can add.

So before you respond with something like, ?Hey, what about cement, huh, what about that?? I recommend you learn the complete difference between mere construction cost and total development cost, and then read all of this proposal?s public records on cost. _ Those records show how the total development cost for this air rights project is less than for its land-based equivalent.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

^^Can you tell us specifically what "total development costs" are cheaper on a deck than on land? I highly doubt that the marketing costs for decked projects are significantly different than projects on land.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]What cost-cutting consultants might do[/size]

Over the last year, the CalPERS real estate investment portfolio returned less than half of what similar large institutional investors earned. _ On 8 June, CalPERS lost a phenomenal $1 billion when it forced its own project to file for bankruptcy rather than give it any more money. _ Then another CalPERS venture in New York fell on the skids. _ (See ?Manhattan Property could strain CalPERS?, Wall Street Journal, 27 September 2008, online.wsj.com/article/SB122247312365281013.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo.)

The recently hired consultants now say they?ll finish their viability analysis by New Year?s Eve. _ But by the time their recommendations are published next year, no cost cuts ? regardless of how deep they go, how many there are, or how many dollars they save ? will fix CalPERS? dismal portfolio-wide performance far enough to re-start Columbus Center.

In addition, the Commercial Mortgage Securities Association reports that from 2007 to 2008, the primary source of capital used by developers shrank 95%. _ The 5% of loans issued this year went only to developers who put up large amounts of their own cash, and had committed customers signed up before construction started (see ?A crash course in credit?, Boston Globe, 28 September 2008).

Since this project has no more developer cash, no more subsidies, no committed customers, and never qualified for a commercial bank loan, the only practical advice that the new consultants might be able to give is to offer to buy, finance, and build the entire venture themselves.

But the new total cost (≈$840 million) remains unacceptably risky even for the $245 billion CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, which makes it even more unacceptable for the much smaller Beal/Related outfit.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . specifically what "total development costs" are cheaper on a deck than on land?

The line item amounts vary from one project to the next, but for Columbus Center . . .

■ A breakdown is in my message 1278 on 21 August 2008.
■ A related analysis is in my message 1395 on 25 September 2008.
■ A summary answer is in message 1405 on 26 September 2008.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

A valid comparison considers every possible factor, considers each factor only once, and considers no factor twice.

All the factors in your latest list were already accounted for in the 120-page, multi-year analysis by an accredited, nationally recognized property appraiser. _ Because you still don?t realize that they?ve already been accounted for, you keep trying to count them again, which makes your comparison invalid. _ No factor you could mention would support your argument, because every applicable factor is already in the equation. _With every factor already present and accounted for, there?s no factor that you or anyone else can add.

So before you respond with something like, ?Hey, what about cement, huh, what about that?? I recommend you learn the complete difference between mere construction cost and total development cost, and then read all of this proposal?s public records on cost. _ Those records show how the total development cost for this air rights project is less than for its land-based equivalent.

Then prove to me that construction cost on the CC over air is less than a CC over land. Since you say construction cost accounts for all materials, including equipment and construction material, etc etc, then tell me wouldn't renting equipments require more cost since it takes longer to construct CC over air due to time limits caused by the Pike, tell me wouldn't the decking material cost more than digging a hole, tell me wouldn't the material use to strengthen the walls on the pike cost more since that is not required if CC was built over land? And how about the various other cost, the cost to hire architect to specially design the support structure over the pike? Construction Cost = all materials needed to build a tower and due to the fact that CC over the air requires more material and more complex technique to build including longer renting periods for construction equipments, CC over air would cost more than CC over land. What total construction cost would include is the construction cost itself, the cost of the land (aka air right), the hiring of workers, hiring of architect to design the structure over the pike, etc.

But let's just make this plain and simple. Take out the terms construction cost and total construction and combine them into just one term everyone can understand. The cost to build the project that encompasses all cost, whether indirect or direct. With everything included (for example what I mention above and the cost of paying for the land/upkeeps) the cost to build the project will be greater than if it is built on land.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

The line item amounts vary from one project to the next, but for Columbus Center . . .

■ A breakdown is in my message 1278 on 21 August 2008.
■ A related analysis is in my message 1395 on 25 September 2008.
■ A summary answer is in message 1405 on 26 September 2008.

Which specific "total development costs" are cheaper for Columbus Center than an equivalent structure on land? Please do not avoid the question again, I want specifics, not more complaining about people who do not read 15,000 pages of information of which can be interpreted many ways. You're not winning any converts with your refusal to answer even the most basic questions (and don't spin it by saying "oh, but I actually AM answering the question", when you're not, lying is bad you know).

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . total construction cost would include . . . the construction cost itself, the cost of the land (aka air right) . . . the cost of pyaing for the land/upkeeps . . .

No!

The term is ?air rights?, not ?air right? [sic].
The word is ?paying? not ?pyaing? [sic].
There is no word called ?upkeeps? [sic].
?Construction cost? does not include property.
?Total development cost? does include property.

The many people who grasp the air-versus-land comparison calculation easily either know ? or else are willing to learn ? the definitions of these two cost terms (?construction? versus ?total-development?), and they recognize each term?s role in the analysis. _ Because you refuse to learn these definitions, and refuse to use them correctly in the calculation that makes the comparison, there is no way to help you any further.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Which specific "total development costs" are cheaper for Columbus Center than an equivalent structure on land? . . . I want specifics, not . . . 15,000 pages of information of which can be interpreted many ways.

When I give you the summary, you argue because you don?t have the data, but when I offer the data, you refuse it and demand a summary. _ The very specifics you demand are found among the very pages you refuse to read, so your inability to understand the air-versus-land comparison calculation is a problem entirely of your own making.

And it?s silly to fear that you?ll interpret this raw data ?many ways?; that would happen only if you don?t know what you?re doing in the first place. _ Digging deeper into this data only makes the answer clearer.

Message 1278 on 21 August 2008 answers your question using plain, clear English and elementary (school) arithmetic. Most people understand it instantly; a few people take a tad longer, and some need several attempts. _ So, re-read #1278.

If that doesn?t work, give all of #1278 ? unedited ? to a mentor who?s had success walking you through similar exercises. _ It?s rare that anyone fails to grasp it, but if re-reading a few times with a coach still doesn?t work, then perhaps you are that rare bird.

 

[shawn]

Re: Columbus Center

No!

The term is ?air rights?, not ?air right? [sic].
The word is ?paying? not ?pyaing? [sic].
There is no word called ?upkeeps? [sic].
?Construction cost? does not include property.
?Total development cost? does include property.

The many people who grasp the air-versus-land comparison calculation easily either know ? or else are willing to learn ? the definitions of these two cost terms (?construction? versus ?total-development?), and they recognize each term?s role in the analysis. _ Because you refuse to learn these definitions, and refuse to use them correctly in the calculation that makes the comparison, there is no way to help you any further.

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.

Ned, you probably have some valid points worth making, and as a foil to this site's heavily pro-construction bias, your input would be worthwhile . . . if you weren't such a dick about it. Mocking someone surreptitiously through grammar corrections ([sic]) make you seem petty and greatly decrease your posts' credibility.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

When I give you the summary, you argue because you don’t have the data, but when I offer the data, you refuse it and demand a summary. _ The very specifics you demand are found among the very pages you refuse to read, so your inability to understand the air-versus-land comparison calculation is a problem entirely of your own making.

And it’s silly to fear that you’ll interpret this raw data “many ways”; that would happen only if you don’t know what you’re doing in the first place. _ Digging deeper into this data only makes the answer clearer.

Message 1278 on 21 August 2008 answers your question using plain, clear English and elementary (school) arithmetic. Most people understand it instantly; a few people take a tad longer, and some need several attempts. _ So, re-read #1278.

If that doesn’t work, give all of #1278 — unedited — to a mentor who’s had success walking you through similar exercises. _ It’s rare that anyone fails to grasp it, but if re-reading a few times with a coach still doesn’t work, then perhaps you are that rare bird.

How about I give #1418 to a mentor who probably would tell me not to respond to “bullies”? I’m tired of your insulting condescension, you are not any more important than any of us, no matter what you think. You are simply a garden-variety NIMBY who likes to look down on other people, pretending to be a member of the elite. I should probably send a few of these posts to the South End News and the Back Bay Sun; they’ll probably think twice before publishing any more of your screeds against Columbus Center. Seriously, get a social life, if you are the member of the elite that you fancy yourself to be, you shouldn’t be insulting random people on the Internet over a stalled construction project that will not affect your quality of life whatsoever (by your own admission: UFPs don’t cause instant death, CC won’t block your views, you say you don’t have anything against the income of those who may inhabit CC, so where’s the harm?). Get some drinks at the Ritz, or something (may I suggest getting a JOB?). Sheesh……….

Oh yeah, and I asked you a question, and you refused to answer it in that post, seems like you want to annoy people, forcing them to go back 50 pages, rather than people giving answers that they'll actually read, like you say you do...I actually want to know the answer, and you steadfastly refuse even the most basic of requests. Refusal to come up with information supporting the NIMBY’s (meaning yours) position = FAIL.