Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, you just proved without a doubt what your problem is. You read that article and only saw the part that you wanted to.

Pay attention!

B&T: "You are among the loudest voices in opposition ..."

Walz: "That's not true ... Once the [BRA] approved the project I haven't said a word in opposition to the project itself. I object to the taxpayers subsidizing the profits of a developer."

Wait, have you been operating under mistaken assumptions, THIS ENTIRE TIME????

Marty Walz is NOT against Columbus Center, Ned.

What are you talking about???

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

That article's headline reads like something from the Onion.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

At the end of the day... with so many stresses in life with clients, family, major economic issues... I really love reading this particular thread. It's somehow soothing and cathartic in its relentless whimsy.

This silly little complex will get built if the developers (whomever they may be) can get money cheap enough to make a profit.

Or it won't. What's the big argument?

If a bank gives Beal $750M to build the thing, and Beal thinks that's enough to turn a good profit, then it gets built - as-is, as-approved, as it's ready to go.

And if not, then it doesn't get built and the whole thing is put to rest and the site is put out to bid again by the bankrupt MTA and this time we have a feeding frenzy of developers trying to get their hands on it, proposing taller, denser projects, knowing the old proposal was not profitable.

Should be a fun ride.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Marty Walz is NOT against Columbus Center, Ned. What are you talking about???

Calm down, and re-read. When you incorrectly wrote, ?Walz . . . is on record as saying she supports Columbus Center. . .? I merely posted her interview proving the opposite._ When the interviewer asked her, ?You are among the loudest voices in opposition. . .?? Rep. Walz replied, ?That?s not true.?

Today?s article says, ?House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, state Rep. Martha Walz and state Rep. Byron Rushing, the rest of the delegation who represent the downtown district in the legislature, have steadfastly opposed public financing for Columbus Center.?_ And that is correct.

Walz:
(1) criticized the proposal prior to its approval in 2003;
(2) has never opposed the proposal since it was approved; and
(3) has always opposed public subsidies for it.

I never said Walz was ?against? Columbus Center, as you think I did._ I did write that Walz ?doesn?t support? it, which she doesn?t._ The world is not the black-versus-white, oppose-or-support place that you imagine it to be; there are many more thoughtful positions than merely ?oppose? and ?support?.

Rep. Walz, her colleagues, and their constituents are an excellent example:_ collectively, they support air rights development across the city, including parcels 16-17-18-19, and they also oppose subsidizing the Columbus Center proposal._ That?s because the owners promised ? verbally, in writing, and in the Boston Globe ? that their proposal was subsidy-free, but then after it was approved sought 15 subsidies totaling $222 million.

Such bait-and-switch tactics are opposed by everyone, except perhaps your forum colleagues who are ? or hope to be ? on the development industry gravy train at everyone else?s expense._ Take, for example, DarkFenX, who wrote in post 983 on 9 May, ?I don?t care whether the Columbus Center developers lied or not, people should have seen it coming.?

 

[sidewalks]

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.

Ned...I felt the need to dig through this god-forsaken stack of misanthropic postings simply because I find your postings to be so bloody condescending.

You did, in fact, state that air rights construction costs are EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN land based construction costs.

Here's your original post:

Q-26. Is there a ?deck cost premium??
A-26. No. The Master Plan does allow excess density as a way to pay for only those tunnel / deck / basement costs that exceed the equivalent land-based costs; however, no such premium was ever proved. With air rights construction costing equal to or less than land-based construction, there is no ?deck cost premium? that could justify excess density.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

As is your custom, you have misrepresented both the issue and what you have stated in the past. In the most recent posts you have made great effort to assert that you have stated that Total Development Costs are equal on land and over the highway...but that equivalence exists only because a sweetheart deal was given to the developer on the land acquistion. That argument may very well be true. But that isn't what you've asserted for these past several years. You've steadfastly contended that CONSTRUCTION costs are either equal or less for air rights construction. More recently you seem to have seen the absurd and erroneous basis of this notion. As a result you've decided to rewrite your own position and chide those who point out the problem with your original thesis as misguided and misinformed.

The following is another post of yours from March of this year, in which you reassert your contention about construction costs:

7. Construction cost over air and land are equivalent. ? There?s no significant difference in air rights versus land-based construction cost. Before the Columbus Center public hearings got underway, a Sverdup/Parsons Brinckerhoff engineering team studied this, and concluded that the ?premium cost? is nominal, if it even exists at all. Consult their analysis, ?Air Rights Cost Study Parcels 16 and 17? (May, 2001).
_____California?s Columbus Center invented and promoted the ?premium cost? notion as a scheme to pay less rent.
_____All forum members who mentioned deck costs had incorrect numbers. As of 29 February 2008, the completion guarantee negotiated between MTA and California for the tunnel walls, ceilings, air shafts, and roof is $279,461,484.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

You?ve completely forgotten that the purpose of this discussion is to compare total development cost in air versus on land. _ The same building does not have to actually be built twice, or even once, to do such a comparison. _ The discussion is about comparing total development cost under two scenarios to see the cost difference. _ The fact that the same building wouldn?t be built twice is irrelevant.

The fact is, the two different scenarios does not exist since there are no two identical or near identical project. There are no study conducted to show exactly how much one building would cost over an air right, especially one as complex as CC, compared to how much the same building would cost to be built on land. Thus as I stated before, no one can really prove you wrong nor can anyone prove you right either.

No. _ Unpopularity during the public review process never equates to chance for profit or risk of loss during the bank lending stage. _Bankers who are scoring an approved project ignore its popularity prior to the approval. _ They assess risk in order to determine how likely it is that the developer will repay all principal and interest on time, and the project?s value in case they have to repossess it, not how popular the proposal was prior to approval, or how long approval took.

You are so wrong in so many ways. Yes, actually the effects of NIMBYs do effect the risk of a tower. Let's take a look at Boston's history with this. In fact CC is a good example. I believe CC when it was first propose was actually taller than it is proposed now but due to community opposition, the building had to shave off a few stories which leads to a smaller revenue. If strong enough, the project can be entirely withdrawn such as the example of the Boylston tower which had its height shaved from 650-550ft then canceled entirely. Shadow also play a role. Look at the Copley Tower being proposed. Although the design didn't change as the developers decided to rotate it to minimize the amount of shadow, had it been a more stout of a project, chances are, the project will have to make it skinnier and thus lose out on space/revenue. Hell even Russia Wharf, although not from the usual residential NIMBYs, had their project stall due to it's neighbor the 500 Atlantic Ave due to views being blocked. And I'm not just talking about mainly just the bankers but the developers themselves that have to pay for the property.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned do us all a favor and please shut the fuck up.




That is all.

 

[nova617]

Re: Columbus Center

Hey everybody. I just joined the forum and this is my first post! I've been following the threads for months and admire the enthusiasm and civility that most people show here. However, although I couldn't agree more with you, bosdevelopment, you're only playing into Ned's hands. Clearly, he is an arch-NIMBY (forgive the accidental pun)...someone with enough time on his hands to choose a clearly pro-development forum and to try and irritate members is NOT worth it. That being said, I would LOVE to see this thing get built. The location (at the awkward intersection of BB and SE, above an ugly highway and in an area that is ALREADY A HIGH-RISE DISTRICT) is ideal for such a project. While nowhere NEAR 'skyscraper status,' I feel like it would visually help to knit the fabric of the city together...from aerial photos, so much of the city feels stupidly chopped up (by the MASS PIKE/GOVT CENTER, etc.) Kind of a random interjection to a years-old thread haha, but what do people think?

 

[Patriots_1228]

Re: Columbus Center

i agree. however, people would rather bitch about cancerous fumes or somthing...

 

[nova617]

Re: Columbus Center

yes, ned's points about CC's developers' obligation to filter the air vented from the Pike really amused me.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . you have stated that Total Development Costs are equal on land and over the highway . . .

No. _ This project?s total-development-cost isn?t equal both in air and on land; it is less in air, confirmed by the arithmetic in the public records.

. . . only because a sweetheart deal was given to the developer on the land acquisition. That argument may very well be true.

Yes, it is true that the total-development-cost is less, but not only because of the below-market-value property cost; it?s less because of the total of all costs ? less all savings ? in both scenarios ? confirmed by the arithmetic in the public records.

. . . you've asserted for these past several years. . .

No. _ I first joined this forum in August 2007, and first raised total development cost in August 2008.

. . . You've steadfastly contended that CONSTRUCTION costs are either equal or less for air rights construction.

No. _ One year ago, I first mentioned the conclusion reported by MTA?s own engineers, Sverdup/Parsons Brinckerhoff, who found that the developers? ?deck-premium? (the increased cost in air versus on land), if it exists at all, is too nominal to bother considering.

That was S/PB?s conclusion, they never retracted it, and I reported it.

One year later, Wocket asked for details about how the total-development-cost for a 30-story building over a transportation corridor could be less than the total-development-cost for the same project on vacant land. _ I replied the same day, in message 1278 on 21 August 2008.

The deck-premium cost issue introduced in August 2007 was about a cost study by MTA engineers; the total-development-cost issue introduced in August 2008 was a cost comparison using the arithmetic in the public records.

The issues are different; the deck-premium notion is only one element in the total-development-cost equation. _ But S/PB?s May, 2001 deck-premium conclusion remains unchanged, and the public records data used in my August, 2008 total-development-cost comparison also remain unchanged.

When I joined the forum or when I first raised the two issues is irrelevant; the data themselves remain the same, as do the conclusions.

This proposal?s total-development-cost is less in air than on land. _ If someone else has all the data from this proposal, and can present another reasonable point of view using that data, it might be interesting. _ Until then, the data so far stand on their own, unaffected by name-calling or obscenities.

 

[kmp1284]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, nobody cares anymore. Just give it a rest.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . the two different scenarios does not exist since there are no two identical or near identical project.

No. _ A scenario is conceptual. _ Even when a scenario is not yet built in the physical world, the scenario still exists. _ It is a concept. _ Performing the comparison requires only the concept. _ The buildings do not have to be built to perform the comparison.

. . . There are no study conducted to show exactly how much one building would cost over an air right, especially one as complex as CC, compared to how much the same building would cost to be built on land.

No. _ Multiple studies were performed. _ Those studies exist. _ If ? at this late date ? you still do not have the public records for this proposal, and you still are not willing to pull the pages you need to participate in this discussion, then it will be difficult for you to contribute anything useful.

. . . CC when it was first propose was actually taller than it is proposed now but due to community opposition, the building had to shave off a few stories which leads to a smaller revenue.

No. _ Re-read the public records.

The Environmental Notification Form, dated 30 November 2001 (on page 4 of 56), proposed 29 stories. _ The 99-year lease, signed 2 May 2006 (on page 29 of 3,400), is for 35 stories. _ The proposal grew by 6 floors, and by the time the lease was signed, the square footage more than doubled, from 713,000 to 1,490,800.

Community opposition, objections from city staff, and threats from elected officials had no impact, because the development team owned the majority of seats on the review panel. _ The 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer voted in favor; the 4 democratically nominated members voted in opposition.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned,

Say "No" say "that's not true" as much as you like...your own words contradict you.

 

[InTheHood]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, I'll try to put this in as polite and constructive a manner possible, but I think you could be spending your time more wisely to better achieve your goals.

With respect to the construction costs, there's not a reputable civil engineer in the world who would contend that building a deck over an active highway wouldn't add markedly to project costs. Indeed, you'll note that most of the large structures in both the CC and Rosenthal proposals are rooted on terra firma, and for good reason. It's not an either/or ... an air-rights developer has to do BOTH decks AND excavation. If air rights posed no additional costs, huge tracts over the Eisenhower in Chicago and the FDR Drive in NYC and I-5 through Seattle would have been decked years ago, never mind the local examples. You've quoted some text out of context. I'm not sure what purpose this serves. Clearly you aren't converting anyone here, and these posts make civil engineers giggle.

With respect to project ownership, you seem to see a conspiracy theory in a structure that someone involved in large commercial real estate development wouldn't find unusual. When you substitute "California" for CalPERS, and when you seem to confuse the role of general partners and limited partners ... well, that doesn't convert any readers, either, and these posts make even 23-year-old employees of Putnam or Fidelity giggle.

With respect to economics, where to start? You cite cost and revenue projections from years ago as if they came down on stone tablets; you don't seem to acknowledge the relationship between risk and return and in turn the relationship between returns and both the debt and the tiers of ownership; you don't seem to understand the implications of the market developments of the last 3 years, never mind the last 3 weeks. Development on this scale is a high risk / high reward endeavor, it can't be evaluated like a T-bill. I'm sure that somewhere, Winn-Cassin once had a model that showed them earning a 30%-plus return on the project, and you can bet that Beal-Related won't touch it until/unless they can do the same. After approval, steel costs went through the roof, the condo market flattened (and subsequently collapsed), other nearby projects were started, debt financing tightened, and the developers started fishing for handouts. It's perfectly rational to argue that the public shouldn't subsidize CC, but to suggest that the delay is all the result of a big swindle or incompetence by developers who would have earned windfall returns based on the disparate data you've pulled from several different five year old documents ... well, that's silly. It's even more exasperating when the changes you seem to want in the CC proposal all either ADD costs or SUBTRACT revenue. These posts don't convert anyone, and they make real estate professionals giggle.

Look, you seem an intelligent fellow. And clearly you have plenty of passion and time. But your content makes it clear that you are new to many of these subjects, and suggests too much time in the library with the documents and little contact with people who understand how these pieces fit together. So here's a suggestion ... audit an MBA real estate course. Spend some time with developers and civil engineers and architects (sadly, many have a lot of time on their hands right now). Chase down someone at Cummins or Detroit Diesel or CARB and have them explain the regulation of UFPs. Spend less time reading about Columbus Center and posting on this board, and more time learning from professionals in related fields. Your arguments will be much more persuasive, and you'll generate far fewer unconstructive responses.

I'm sure that sounds like lecturing, Ned, but frankly, so do your posts. Too often they read like an essay on Beethoven by someone who has methodically collected all of the sheet music but never met a musician or heard a note.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

No. _ A scenario is conceptual. _ Even when a scenario is not yet built in the physical world, the scenario still exists. _ It is a concept. _ Performing the comparison requires only the concept. _ The buildings do not have to be built to perform the comparison.

Yes it exist in a concept but the scenario does not realistically exist in the world so a study is required to simulate it. I have not heard or see any simulation of this.

No. _ Multiple studies were performed. _ Those studies exist. _ If ? at this late date ? you still do not have the public records for this proposal, and you still are not willing to pull the pages you need to participate in this discussion, then it will be difficult for you to contribute anything useful.

You did not provide any of the studies of the cost differentiation between CC on land and CC on air as proof, thus your participation in this discussion will continue to be taken lightly. If the studies existed, you could have proven it to the board that it would be cheaper to build CC on land than on air then and there and they would have been no debate on this issue.

No. _ Re-read the public records.

The Environmental Notification Form, dated 30 November 2001 (on page 4 of 56), proposed 29 stories. _ The 99-year lease, signed 2 May 2006 (on page 29 of 3,400), is for 35 stories. _ The proposal grew by 6 floors, and by the time the lease was signed, the square footage more than doubled, from 713,000 to 1,490,800.

Community opposition, objections from city staff, and threats from elected officials had no impact, because the development team owned the majority of seats on the review panel. _ The 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer voted in favor; the 4 democratically nominated members voted in opposition.

You fail to provide counter-statements for my other examples. You only prove me wrong on whether CC was bigger earlier or not, but not how the community failed to affect it. Thus you failed to argue my point and and once again continued to avoid answering the question.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, posting on this board will have no outcome on [when] and [what] gets built. In the end you will lose and you will be miserable, no doubt. Whatever your interest is, financial or otherwise, I can't over stress that posting here will accomplish nothing.

 

[chumbolly]

Re: Columbus Center

^InTheHood, very well put, sir. I think you eloquently summarized the various, significantly more profane, reactions I've had to Mr. Flaherty's posts.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Frustration is only thing rising, it seems[/size]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/04/frustration_is_only_thing_rising_it_seems/?page=1