Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: Columbus Center
Ooops, When I wrote total construction cost I meant to say total development cost. That is a mistake on my part. However, you have yet to answer any of my questions and have use spelling correction in its place to avoid answering how the total development cost would not be more over air than it is over land when construction cost, which is part of the total development cost, will be more over air than over land. Please answer the question, and no don't point me to post number ####. I read them already and have not, and I repeat NOT, (as in NOT, a negative term) found the answer to my question.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: Columbus Center
Actually you know what? I don't need the answer anymore. You haven't proven me much of anything since you came on this board and you acted as a complete dick about it the whole time. So I guess I'll just join the rest of the forumers who believe that we are just beating a dead horse. The project is approve no matter whichever way you look at it. I don't give a crap if the loans were not approve etc etc, the fact remains, if the project was not approved, construction would not have started. Money and a better economic condition is all this project needs to get it going. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who thinks he is better than everyone else.
Actually you know what? I don't need the answer anymore. You haven't proven me much of anything since you came on this board and you acted as a complete dick about it the whole time. So I guess I'll just join the rest of the forumers who believe that we are just beating a dead horse. The project is approve no matter whichever way you look at it. I don't give a crap if the loans were not approve etc etc, the fact remains, if the project was not approved, construction would not have started. Money and a better economic condition is all this project needs to get it going. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who thinks he is better than everyone else.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Quality of life ? for me, for you, and everyone ? is affected by the quality of city and state urban planning. _ In one or more ways, this proposal affects everyone in Massachusetts, so anyone who chooses to endorse it should consider the harms that you asked about, which include:
1. Qualifications, Competition, Disclosure ? Governor Cellucci accepted $10,000 from the developers, waived the developer qualifications, refused all competing proposals, and ensured there would be no financial disclosure.
2. Public Review ? Mayor Menino let the developers tell him who he could appoint to his review committee (and later acccepted a $50,000 donation from the development team), and on every vote the 7 members in seats owned by the developer always overrode the 4 members in democratically nominated seats.
3. Master Plan ? Mayor Menino and the MTA adopted a Turnpike Master Plan that requires a contiguous, 2-acre park whenever there is a skyscraper, but then let the developers replace the required 2-acre park with a 633-car garage.
4. Public Open Space ? Three years after the project?s official approval, the city and state allowed the developers to convert all the public park-ettes to private gardens, over which the public has no control and no recourse.
5. Public Subsidy ? In public meetings, in their written proposal, and in the Boston Globe, the developers proposed a subsidy-free project. _ But after approval, they requested at least 15 subsidies totaling $222 million ? mostly from anti-poverty programs ? to pay their costs and profits at what they call ?the city?s answer to Rodeo Drive [Beverly Hills] and Fifth Avenue [New York City]? ? the very antithesis of poverty. _ The recently hired cost-cutting consultants are specialists in this strategy.
These are the most universal and easily understood of the public harms; there are more.
No, not at all. You could have reached my message 1278 on page 128 with just 3 clicks. When a prior message is that easy and quick to reach, there?s little point in re-posting it after every subsequent inquiry. _ I once re-posted an entire answer long ago, but forum members pointed out that it?s better to refer than repeat, so I took their advice, and you should, too.
OK, so if the answer is all that you want, then let?s try another approach.
1. Stop the name-calling and character assassination.
2. Itemize, explain, and justify how you think the land-versus-air cost comparison calculation works.
3. Answer other forum members? inquiries.
You re-asking and me re-answering about my presentation hasn?t worked very well, so perhaps other people?s questions about your version will resolve this faster for everyone. _ Just a thought.
One friendly word of caution: you?ll be going up against a 120-page professional report by a lifetime, certified, nationally known property appraiser, so it behooves you to understand that report thoroughly before trying to imitate it, revise it, or challenge it.
Quality of life ? for me, for you, and everyone ? is affected by the quality of city and state urban planning. _ In one or more ways, this proposal affects everyone in Massachusetts, so anyone who chooses to endorse it should consider the harms that you asked about, which include:
1. Qualifications, Competition, Disclosure ? Governor Cellucci accepted $10,000 from the developers, waived the developer qualifications, refused all competing proposals, and ensured there would be no financial disclosure.
2. Public Review ? Mayor Menino let the developers tell him who he could appoint to his review committee (and later acccepted a $50,000 donation from the development team), and on every vote the 7 members in seats owned by the developer always overrode the 4 members in democratically nominated seats.
3. Master Plan ? Mayor Menino and the MTA adopted a Turnpike Master Plan that requires a contiguous, 2-acre park whenever there is a skyscraper, but then let the developers replace the required 2-acre park with a 633-car garage.
4. Public Open Space ? Three years after the project?s official approval, the city and state allowed the developers to convert all the public park-ettes to private gardens, over which the public has no control and no recourse.
5. Public Subsidy ? In public meetings, in their written proposal, and in the Boston Globe, the developers proposed a subsidy-free project. _ But after approval, they requested at least 15 subsidies totaling $222 million ? mostly from anti-poverty programs ? to pay their costs and profits at what they call ?the city?s answer to Rodeo Drive [Beverly Hills] and Fifth Avenue [New York City]? ? the very antithesis of poverty. _ The recently hired cost-cutting consultants are specialists in this strategy.
These are the most universal and easily understood of the public harms; there are more.
No, not at all. You could have reached my message 1278 on page 128 with just 3 clicks. When a prior message is that easy and quick to reach, there?s little point in re-posting it after every subsequent inquiry. _ I once re-posted an entire answer long ago, but forum members pointed out that it?s better to refer than repeat, so I took their advice, and you should, too.
OK, so if the answer is all that you want, then let?s try another approach.
1. Stop the name-calling and character assassination.
2. Itemize, explain, and justify how you think the land-versus-air cost comparison calculation works.
3. Answer other forum members? inquiries.
You re-asking and me re-answering about my presentation hasn?t worked very well, so perhaps other people?s questions about your version will resolve this faster for everyone. _ Just a thought.
One friendly word of caution: you?ll be going up against a 120-page professional report by a lifetime, certified, nationally known property appraiser, so it behooves you to understand that report thoroughly before trying to imitate it, revise it, or challenge it.
Re: Columbus Center
Translation: "you'll be going up against someone who has been giving his/her opinion for a while." I can find appraisers who can give me almost any number I would like. The bottom line is an appraisal is someone's opinion whether it's in a 120 page report or not.
Translation: "you'll be going up against someone who has been giving his/her opinion for a while." I can find appraisers who can give me almost any number I would like. The bottom line is an appraisal is someone's opinion whether it's in a 120 page report or not.
Re: Columbus Center
^ Correct. I enjoy how this appraisal is being held up as the truth, but the conclusions of a respectable consulting team that runs counters must somehow be flawed. Different agendas, different conclusions.
^ Correct. I enjoy how this appraisal is being held up as the truth, but the conclusions of a respectable consulting team that runs counters must somehow be flawed. Different agendas, different conclusions.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
I did answer before, but will say it differently this time. _ The land-versus-air cost comparison shows total development cost for Columbus Center to be cheaper in air than it would be on land for 3 previously documented reasons:
1. There are costs over land that are nil over air (e.g., demolition, excavation, contamination, groundwater remediation).
2. The previous tunnel-basement-deck construction cost of only $1.7 ? $5.3 million per acre at this 7-acre air rights site is now even lower, because the cost-cutting consultants just adopted cheaper designs and construction methods.
3. The MTA charged the developer a discounted property price. _ Un-developed, un-contaminated, zoning-free land always commands a premium price. _ Urban Boston?s current rate for 7 such acres is about $210 million, but MTA charged only $12 million, generating a $198 million savings on property alone.
The savings from avoided expenses, cheaper tunnels, and discounted property altogether make the total development cost less over air than on land.
No, the proposal is not ?approve? [sic]. _ It was never fully approved, as shown in the 3,400-page lease, which lists 9 approvals obtained, versus 27 not obtained. _ The MTA never even approved the start of tunnel construction.
But you really should care if loans were not ?approve? [sic]. _ This $840 million, privately owned, investor-backed project needs an array of bank loans to pay for construction. _ Those loans are a necessity, and a prerequisite to all else. _ Over 13 years, not one dollar was ever loaned for this proposal, and the refusal of the commercial banking world to finance it crippled it.
This project never started construction. _ The developers did spend last fall and winter on what they called ?site preparation work? and ?pre-construction activity?, but that was just a theatrically staged event intended to keep investors from bailing out (they bailed anyway), and intended to keep bankers from refusing loans (they refused anyway). The proof that it was only theatrically staged busy-work ? and that nothing was ever built ? can be seen by comparing site photographs over the last 13 years to the actual site today. _ Except for several pieces of rusted steel stuck in the dirt, the moonscape remains unchanged.
The needs are deeper, wider, and more complex than you realize. _ In the ?all this project needs? department, don?t forget:
● $840 million has to come from investors, and/or banks, and/or taxpayers;
● 443 mortgage loans on multi-million dollar condos where the homeowner and bank are both legally and financially responsible for inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and insuring an interstate transportation corridor railway/roadway tunnel for 99 years;
● legislature approval for cheaper tunnel design;
● legislature approval for cheaper tunnel construction; and
● other issues not necessary to consider so long while any of the above remain unresolved.
I did answer before, but will say it differently this time. _ The land-versus-air cost comparison shows total development cost for Columbus Center to be cheaper in air than it would be on land for 3 previously documented reasons:
1. There are costs over land that are nil over air (e.g., demolition, excavation, contamination, groundwater remediation).
2. The previous tunnel-basement-deck construction cost of only $1.7 ? $5.3 million per acre at this 7-acre air rights site is now even lower, because the cost-cutting consultants just adopted cheaper designs and construction methods.
3. The MTA charged the developer a discounted property price. _ Un-developed, un-contaminated, zoning-free land always commands a premium price. _ Urban Boston?s current rate for 7 such acres is about $210 million, but MTA charged only $12 million, generating a $198 million savings on property alone.
The savings from avoided expenses, cheaper tunnels, and discounted property altogether make the total development cost less over air than on land.
No, the proposal is not ?approve? [sic]. _ It was never fully approved, as shown in the 3,400-page lease, which lists 9 approvals obtained, versus 27 not obtained. _ The MTA never even approved the start of tunnel construction.
But you really should care if loans were not ?approve? [sic]. _ This $840 million, privately owned, investor-backed project needs an array of bank loans to pay for construction. _ Those loans are a necessity, and a prerequisite to all else. _ Over 13 years, not one dollar was ever loaned for this proposal, and the refusal of the commercial banking world to finance it crippled it.
This project never started construction. _ The developers did spend last fall and winter on what they called ?site preparation work? and ?pre-construction activity?, but that was just a theatrically staged event intended to keep investors from bailing out (they bailed anyway), and intended to keep bankers from refusing loans (they refused anyway). The proof that it was only theatrically staged busy-work ? and that nothing was ever built ? can be seen by comparing site photographs over the last 13 years to the actual site today. _ Except for several pieces of rusted steel stuck in the dirt, the moonscape remains unchanged.
The needs are deeper, wider, and more complex than you realize. _ In the ?all this project needs? department, don?t forget:
● $840 million has to come from investors, and/or banks, and/or taxpayers;
● 443 mortgage loans on multi-million dollar condos where the homeowner and bank are both legally and financially responsible for inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and insuring an interstate transportation corridor railway/roadway tunnel for 99 years;
● legislature approval for cheaper tunnel design;
● legislature approval for cheaper tunnel construction; and
● other issues not necessary to consider so long while any of the above remain unresolved.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: Columbus Center
Site preparation work, pre-construction activity or not, a project that is not approved would not be allow to dig up the land in preparation for decking if it's not approved.
And here's my final post until something of substance comes up.
And just FYI, upkeep means maintenance.
Site preparation work, pre-construction activity or not, a project that is not approved would not be allow to dig up the land in preparation for decking if it's not approved.
And here's my final post until something of substance comes up.
And just FYI, upkeep means maintenance.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Yes, appraisers and their work are sometimes bought. _ And yes, even when not bought, such work is only an opinion. _ And yes, any fair-market-value appraisal which contributes to or supports a below-fair-market-value price is, by definition, inaccurate and flawed. _ But the fact that appraisals are opinions and may be inaccurate is irrelevant to this discussion. _ The appraisal?s accuracy has no bearing on the topic at hand: _ total development cost. _ The point is that building Columbus Center in air is less costly than on land, because an appraisal ? accurate or otherwise ? was used to discount the property.
Columbus Center?s owners did find a flawed appraiser, did get a flawed appraisal, did trick MTA into discounting the property, and the resulting below-market price is part of what makes building Columbus Center less costly in air than it would be on land.
No, not at all. _ You completely misunderstand; I never said this appraisal is anywhere near the truth. _ What I?ve long said is that an inaccurate appraisal was used to discount the property below market value, which is what makes this project less costly to build in air than on land.
Yes, appraisers and their work are sometimes bought. _ And yes, even when not bought, such work is only an opinion. _ And yes, any fair-market-value appraisal which contributes to or supports a below-fair-market-value price is, by definition, inaccurate and flawed. _ But the fact that appraisals are opinions and may be inaccurate is irrelevant to this discussion. _ The appraisal?s accuracy has no bearing on the topic at hand: _ total development cost. _ The point is that building Columbus Center in air is less costly than on land, because an appraisal ? accurate or otherwise ? was used to discount the property.
Columbus Center?s owners did find a flawed appraiser, did get a flawed appraisal, did trick MTA into discounting the property, and the resulting below-market price is part of what makes building Columbus Center less costly in air than it would be on land.
No, not at all. _ You completely misunderstand; I never said this appraisal is anywhere near the truth. _ What I?ve long said is that an inaccurate appraisal was used to discount the property below market value, which is what makes this project less costly to build in air than on land.
Re: Columbus Center
'Building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land.' Feel free to cite whichever numbers, reports, appraisals or documents you like, Ned. It doesn't matter. You aren't credible and neither are your figures. You might as well spend your days arguing that Bunker Hill Community College is more difficult to get into than Harvard, or that a little leaguer is better than Josh Beckett, or that the electricity costs on your condo are more than those of Fenway Park. I think you may well have convinced yourself that this absurd contention is true, but the rest of us don't need to read 10,000 pages of public documents to see that it is pure malarkey.
'Building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land.' Feel free to cite whichever numbers, reports, appraisals or documents you like, Ned. It doesn't matter. You aren't credible and neither are your figures. You might as well spend your days arguing that Bunker Hill Community College is more difficult to get into than Harvard, or that a little leaguer is better than Josh Beckett, or that the electricity costs on your condo are more than those of Fenway Park. I think you may well have convinced yourself that this absurd contention is true, but the rest of us don't need to read 10,000 pages of public documents to see that it is pure malarkey.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The project is approved, ready to build and enjoys widespread government and public support. A very, very small handful of activists oppose this project *yawn* and nobody cares at this point.
The financial/credit world was in turmoil, now is in crisis. When that issue - and that issue alone - is resolved, Columbus Center will rise. Done deal. No problem. Fake deadline after fake deadline will be passed, and the property will only move ahead when the credit crisis subsides. You can't put that in writing, so you don't.
Beal/Related will take this project over and they have the deep pockets and the intestinal fortitude to proceed. Again, this is a done deal. There is nothing to argue about. Tower One of Columbus Center (the Clarendon) is already rising and sales are doing great! This is how we know Columbus Center will be built.
There is nothing more to argue about. Ned's quixotic campaign against Columbus Center reminds me of the Cake song "the Distance" with lyrics: "the arena is empty, except for one man/ still striving and driving as fast as he can/ the sun has gone down and the moon has gone up/ and long ago somebody left with the cup"
Ned is the one man at the empty arena. The battle is over. The sun has gone down on his arguments. A dark horse, Robert Beal, is now holding the cup in victory.
The project is approved, ready to build and enjoys widespread government and public support. A very, very small handful of activists oppose this project *yawn* and nobody cares at this point.
The financial/credit world was in turmoil, now is in crisis. When that issue - and that issue alone - is resolved, Columbus Center will rise. Done deal. No problem. Fake deadline after fake deadline will be passed, and the property will only move ahead when the credit crisis subsides. You can't put that in writing, so you don't.
Beal/Related will take this project over and they have the deep pockets and the intestinal fortitude to proceed. Again, this is a done deal. There is nothing to argue about. Tower One of Columbus Center (the Clarendon) is already rising and sales are doing great! This is how we know Columbus Center will be built.
There is nothing more to argue about. Ned's quixotic campaign against Columbus Center reminds me of the Cake song "the Distance" with lyrics: "the arena is empty, except for one man/ still striving and driving as fast as he can/ the sun has gone down and the moon has gone up/ and long ago somebody left with the cup"
Ned is the one man at the empty arena. The battle is over. The sun has gone down on his arguments. A dark horse, Robert Beal, is now holding the cup in victory.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
That?s untrue. _ Digging without approvals should never be allowed, of course.
But it was allowed.
The developers didn?t admit to MTA until November 2007 that the loans they?d claimed on subsidy applications since 2005 never even existed, so one of the current controversies in the halls of city and state government is why several agencies approved the start of site preparation over two years ago even though the project remained un-financed, and why agencies tentatively approved subsidies without confirming the loans claimed on the applications. _ Re-read ?Turnpike may halt Columbus Center job? (Boston Globe, 13 December 2007).
It became such an embarrassment that Mayor Menino and the BRA just drafted tough new rules so this never happens again. _ Re-read ?Menino wants assurances from developers, proof of project financing? (Boston Globe, 12 August 2008).
Well, yes, of course ?upkeep? means ?maintenance?. _ But the discussion was how total development cost is less in air than it is on land. _ And maintenance is not one of the factors in total development cost. _ Maintenance is only relevant to operational cost, which is borne by future occupant-owners, and which is separate and distinct from total development cost, which is borne by developer-owners. _ So, although I do know what ?upkeep? means, I still wonder what you mean when you include it as a factor in total development cost.
That?s untrue. _ Digging without approvals should never be allowed, of course.
But it was allowed.
The developers didn?t admit to MTA until November 2007 that the loans they?d claimed on subsidy applications since 2005 never even existed, so one of the current controversies in the halls of city and state government is why several agencies approved the start of site preparation over two years ago even though the project remained un-financed, and why agencies tentatively approved subsidies without confirming the loans claimed on the applications. _ Re-read ?Turnpike may halt Columbus Center job? (Boston Globe, 13 December 2007).
It became such an embarrassment that Mayor Menino and the BRA just drafted tough new rules so this never happens again. _ Re-read ?Menino wants assurances from developers, proof of project financing? (Boston Globe, 12 August 2008).
Well, yes, of course ?upkeep? means ?maintenance?. _ But the discussion was how total development cost is less in air than it is on land. _ And maintenance is not one of the factors in total development cost. _ Maintenance is only relevant to operational cost, which is borne by future occupant-owners, and which is separate and distinct from total development cost, which is borne by developer-owners. _ So, although I do know what ?upkeep? means, I still wonder what you mean when you include it as a factor in total development cost.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
By confusing ?building? with ?total development?, you?ve repeated the fundamental mistake that keeps reappearing ? surprisingly ? on a forum where people are supposed to know better.
You wrote, ?building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land? but I never said that.
?Construction cost? is not the same as ?total development cost?. _ ?Construction cost? is only one of many factors that comprise ?total development cost?. _ Public records and the developers? own numbers together show that this proposal?s ?total development cost? is less in air than it would be on land.
By confusing ?building? with ?total development?, you?ve repeated the fundamental mistake that keeps reappearing ? surprisingly ? on a forum where people are supposed to know better.
You wrote, ?building over a highway is cheaper than building on solid land? but I never said that.
?Construction cost? is not the same as ?total development cost?. _ ?Construction cost? is only one of many factors that comprise ?total development cost?. _ Public records and the developers? own numbers together show that this proposal?s ?total development cost? is less in air than it would be on land.
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Columbus Center
Looks like you are either fabricating a mistake or making one yourself. The statement of building over a highway etc. is correct. There is a big difference between building and Building. The one with the lower case b indicates the act of constructing something over the highway, and not the cost of a Building over the highway. Stop trying to point out mistakes and answer a freaking question. You are not on the witness stand, and nothing stated in this forum constitutes any kind of contract or binding agreement.
The cost of building a deck versus excavation and backfilling for underground services may or may not be more expensive. I would like to hear actual cost comparisons to prove either way. But, my first guess would be that building (total development cost) from the ground up would be much cheaper than building over air rights. Unless of course you were building on a brown site where extensive remediation or other constraints were to be included.
The cost to purchase the rights to build over the highway, it would make sense, would be cheaper than purchasing the same amount of buildable land, but there are then many added costs to the air rights development that could potentially more than offset this initial difference.
Try to always remember that this is a public forum, and not one only for those with extensive knowledge of the legal system. It is also not a pre-requisite, that you possess a great grammatical aptitude (although appreciated). Just talk like a human, and if you want to tell people they are wrong all the time. Try to give a bit more info and educate, not cut everyone down, and continue to condescend like a supreme all knowing being. Like was said earlier. You're just some dude.
Looks like you are either fabricating a mistake or making one yourself. The statement of building over a highway etc. is correct. There is a big difference between building and Building. The one with the lower case b indicates the act of constructing something over the highway, and not the cost of a Building over the highway. Stop trying to point out mistakes and answer a freaking question. You are not on the witness stand, and nothing stated in this forum constitutes any kind of contract or binding agreement.
The cost of building a deck versus excavation and backfilling for underground services may or may not be more expensive. I would like to hear actual cost comparisons to prove either way. But, my first guess would be that building (total development cost) from the ground up would be much cheaper than building over air rights. Unless of course you were building on a brown site where extensive remediation or other constraints were to be included.
The cost to purchase the rights to build over the highway, it would make sense, would be cheaper than purchasing the same amount of buildable land, but there are then many added costs to the air rights development that could potentially more than offset this initial difference.
Try to always remember that this is a public forum, and not one only for those with extensive knowledge of the legal system. It is also not a pre-requisite, that you possess a great grammatical aptitude (although appreciated). Just talk like a human, and if you want to tell people they are wrong all the time. Try to give a bit more info and educate, not cut everyone down, and continue to condescend like a supreme all knowing being. Like was said earlier. You're just some dude.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
In 2001, competitive bidders formally offered the City of Boston $23 million for a zoned but un-developed 0.85-acre (37,388 s.f.) parcel at 580 Washington Street.
That per-square-foot price needs three upward adjustments:
(1) $4.14 million for the 18% increase in size to 1.0 acre;
(2) $6.24 million for 7 years of appreciation at 3%/year;
(3) $5 million for the rare but valuable characteristic of zoning-free property in an urban setting.
That yields about $38 million per un-zoned, un-developed acre today, and even more for acreage that requires virtually no groundwater remediation and has virtually no soil contamination.
At $38 million per acre, a 7-acre site in an equally valuable part of town is worth $266 million, but MTA decided to charge this developer only $12 million, or 5 cents on the dollar.
What makes Columbus Center less costly to build in air than on land, among other things, is discounting the fair market value by 95%.
In 2001, competitive bidders formally offered the City of Boston $23 million for a zoned but un-developed 0.85-acre (37,388 s.f.) parcel at 580 Washington Street.
That per-square-foot price needs three upward adjustments:
(1) $4.14 million for the 18% increase in size to 1.0 acre;
(2) $6.24 million for 7 years of appreciation at 3%/year;
(3) $5 million for the rare but valuable characteristic of zoning-free property in an urban setting.
That yields about $38 million per un-zoned, un-developed acre today, and even more for acreage that requires virtually no groundwater remediation and has virtually no soil contamination.
At $38 million per acre, a 7-acre site in an equally valuable part of town is worth $266 million, but MTA decided to charge this developer only $12 million, or 5 cents on the dollar.
What makes Columbus Center less costly to build in air than on land, among other things, is discounting the fair market value by 95%.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
^^How much did the developers of the Pru, Copley Place, and John Hancock garage pay for their air rights? That is the valid comparison, because the construction methods are the same, unlike air rights vs. land which have different construction methods.
^^How much did the developers of the Pru, Copley Place, and John Hancock garage pay for their air rights? That is the valid comparison, because the construction methods are the same, unlike air rights vs. land which have different construction methods.
bosdevelopment
Active Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 727
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Columbus Center
I've been following this thread for many months now and have yet to chime in.
I have one question for Ned Flaherty:
When was the last time you went to court and got exactly what you wanted?
I've been following this thread for many months now and have yet to chime in.
I have one question for Ned Flaherty:
When was the last time you went to court and got exactly what you wanted?
Re: Columbus Center
Wait a minute!!! Ned, are you kidding me? You are using Haywood Place as your comparative parcel?
Please, let's look at the facts.
Haywood Place = .85 acres
277 Residential Units
373,000 sq. ft.
FAR = 9.98
Columbus Center = 7 acres (Ned's estimate that I didn't check)
343 Residential Units (including 15% affordable)
191 Hotel Rooms
1,063,930 sq. ft.
FAR = 3.50
This means Haywood Place is entitled to be 285% as dense as Columber Center!
Using your "upward adjusted" of $38,000,000/acre, the true value of Columbus Center is about $13,326,000 per acre given allowable development rights.
.....and even that's high, consider you added $5,000,000 to your adjustment, for the claim that is unzoned, which is misleading, because it is still only entitled to allow for what was approved.
Wait a minute!!! Ned, are you kidding me? You are using Haywood Place as your comparative parcel?
Please, let's look at the facts.
Haywood Place = .85 acres
277 Residential Units
373,000 sq. ft.
FAR = 9.98
Columbus Center = 7 acres (Ned's estimate that I didn't check)
343 Residential Units (including 15% affordable)
191 Hotel Rooms
1,063,930 sq. ft.
FAR = 3.50
This means Haywood Place is entitled to be 285% as dense as Columber Center!
Using your "upward adjusted" of $38,000,000/acre, the true value of Columbus Center is about $13,326,000 per acre given allowable development rights.
.....and even that's high, consider you added $5,000,000 to your adjustment, for the claim that is unzoned, which is misleading, because it is still only entitled to allow for what was approved.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Hayward Place is also in the Combat Zone while Columbus Center is in the Back Bay/South End. But why should we let little details like facts foul up our arguments? It's all so silly, it's like we are debating some newly proposed project. This is an already approved project. Case closed, argument over! Nothing left to fight over.
Hayward Place is also in the Combat Zone while Columbus Center is in the Back Bay/South End. But why should we let little details like facts foul up our arguments? It's all so silly, it's like we are debating some newly proposed project. This is an already approved project. Case closed, argument over! Nothing left to fight over.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The rents of 1962 are interesting only to a historian, and are invalid for comparing today?s projects.
● Firstly, the construction methods are no longer the same, because the technologies of 1962 are not the technologies of 2008.
● Secondly, the rents are no longer the same, because markets, interest rates, nominal tax rates, effective tax rates, and a slew of other factors are very different now.
● Thirdly, if you?re trying to finish the research on the air-versus-land cost comparison, you can?t just compare air to air, because that?s no comparison at all; you have to compare an air site to a land site, with the same building on each one.
● Finally, you can?t just assume that air rights rent is whatever you hear in rumors on the street, because:
(1) MTA charges up to 12 different categories of air rights rent to a given tenant.
(2) Many of those 12 rents are substantial amounts but obscurely documented.
(3) MTA is notoriously secretive about air rights deals.
(4) Newspaper reporters usually just print whatever a developer claims; they rarely read the lease itself.
Be sure you read all the actual leases, and all the subsequent amendments, and find all the rent categories that apply at each property.
The rents of 1962 are interesting only to a historian, and are invalid for comparing today?s projects.
● Firstly, the construction methods are no longer the same, because the technologies of 1962 are not the technologies of 2008.
● Secondly, the rents are no longer the same, because markets, interest rates, nominal tax rates, effective tax rates, and a slew of other factors are very different now.
● Thirdly, if you?re trying to finish the research on the air-versus-land cost comparison, you can?t just compare air to air, because that?s no comparison at all; you have to compare an air site to a land site, with the same building on each one.
● Finally, you can?t just assume that air rights rent is whatever you hear in rumors on the street, because:
(1) MTA charges up to 12 different categories of air rights rent to a given tenant.
(2) Many of those 12 rents are substantial amounts but obscurely documented.
(3) MTA is notoriously secretive about air rights deals.
(4) Newspaper reporters usually just print whatever a developer claims; they rarely read the lease itself.
Be sure you read all the actual leases, and all the subsequent amendments, and find all the rent categories that apply at each property.
- Status