Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]Scott Van Voorhis: MTA demise adds hurdle to air rights development[/size]
[size=+2]Scott Van Voorhis: MTA demise adds hurdle to air rights development[/size]
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Re: Columbus Center
I copied this post into the Fenway Center thread as well.
I copied this post into the Fenway Center thread as well.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,690
- Reaction score
- 1,506
Re: Columbus Center
Just a thought. Obama is looking for infrastructure construction projects that are ready to go as part of the huge stimulus package he will propose. Why not have the MTA build the deck, using stimulus funds, and then sell or lease the deck to whomever the ultimate developer for Columbus Center turns out to be.
A purpose of the stimulus is to crank up construction post haste; building the deck over the Pike is probably the biggest project in MA that would fit that criterion.
Just a thought. Obama is looking for infrastructure construction projects that are ready to go as part of the huge stimulus package he will propose. Why not have the MTA build the deck, using stimulus funds, and then sell or lease the deck to whomever the ultimate developer for Columbus Center turns out to be.
A purpose of the stimulus is to crank up construction post haste; building the deck over the Pike is probably the biggest project in MA that would fit that criterion.
archboston
New member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
I'd be on board with that plan. Hell, throw in the development around Mass Ave too:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/06/turnpike_fields_construction_plans/
So much of this seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It just boggles the mind how we can be in this situation after over a decade of planning.
I'd be on board with that plan. Hell, throw in the development around Mass Ave too:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/06/turnpike_fields_construction_plans/
So much of this seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It just boggles the mind how we can be in this situation after over a decade of planning.
TheBostonBoy
Active Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
You are what we like to call a pessimist, or "Debbie Downer"
You are what we like to call a pessimist, or "Debbie Downer"
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: Columbus Center
I'd love to see fed funds go toward the government building the deck, I feel like that would be so much better for the area, not only because developers wouldn't have to pay to build the deck, the deck would be 'streamlined' in my mind...once developers started building, they wouldn't have to worry that their part of the deck was different from across the street, and other structural issues that would come up with many different plans/construction companies working on it.
However, this is definitely a 'pikedream'.
I'd love to see fed funds go toward the government building the deck, I feel like that would be so much better for the area, not only because developers wouldn't have to pay to build the deck, the deck would be 'streamlined' in my mind...once developers started building, they wouldn't have to worry that their part of the deck was different from across the street, and other structural issues that would come up with many different plans/construction companies working on it.
However, this is definitely a 'pikedream'.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]More of the same with new Columbus Center ownership[/size]
South End News, 3 December 2008
(Source: SEN staff)
Columbus Center?s future owners are just as deceptive as the current and former owners.
The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York are proving to be just as deceptive, evasive, and disrespectful of public process as Columbus Center?s former owners (Winn Development) and current owners (California pension plan and MacFarlane Partners)._ The Boston Globe reports that the future owners (Beal & Related) have been pitching revised proposals for the former and current owners, to ?build support among key officials? ? behind closed doors and with no public disclosure (?Columbus Center questions,? 23 November).
The former public relations firm began a news black-out on 8 July, either saying ?no comment? or else refusing to respond altogether._ Now the new public relations firm has followed suit, ignoring multiple public inquiries by mail, facsimile, and phone over the last two months.
No one knows whom the new owners met with, what they promised, or what the outcomes were._ Clearly, the development team is continuing its historical habit of cutting the public out of the process, and announcing results only when it?s too late for citizens to have any impact.
But far worse than back-room negotiating is the fact that the new owners gave dishonest answers to legitimate public questions._ At a city-sponsored neighborhood meeting on 17 September, community leaders asked Beal Senior Vice President & General Counsel Peter Spellios and McDermott Ventures President Pamela McDermott if they were buying the project, or funding it, or lobbying for it._ Backed by Boston Redevelopment Authority Deputy Director Randi Lathrop and other City officials, they denied all three efforts, saying that they were doing nothing but a routine ?cost-cutting analysis.?
Over two months later, the public learns from The Boston Globe that the truth is quite different.
Real estate industry profiteers argue that avoiding the public to cut private deals is excusable, because all developers do that._ It is indeed common._ But it is not ethical._ And it is inexcusable for a private project that would be built on public property, involving public assets, with enormous amounts of public money paying for its costs and its profits.
Even worse than the developers? recent behaviors are the actions of government agencies and elected officials._ We pay civil servants to advocate for us, not to work against us._ Given all this year?s bad news from city, state, and federal offices, there is no doubt about the harmful effects of government secrecy._ The Mayor and the Governor should stop hiding these negotiations, and disclose today:
? Who among our many civil servants met with these developers?
? What other meetings are pending?
? Why didn?t anyone tell the public in advance?
? What parts of their proposal did the developers change?
? What benefits did they delete?
? What profit-boosting components did they add?
? How did city and state officials respond?
? Why are the developers still asking that their costs and profits be paid for by
taxpayers?
The Beal & Related companies that are trying to buy this project for pennies on the dollar first masqueraded as mere cost-cutting accountants, and then excluded the public from re-negotiation discussions._ So they clearly don?t meet the minimum criteria necessary for air rights developers, because they are demanding no competition; are refusing a public process review; aren?t honoring the Turnpike Master Plan; and ? worst of all ? refuse to allow a Commonwealth-sponsored public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.
Did city and state agencies learn nothing after wasting the last 13 years, which ended in failure?_ As State Representative Martha Walz correctly urged on 28 March, it?s time to seek:_ (1) competitive bids, (2) from qualified developers, (3) who honor the Turnpike Master Plan, (4) with full financial disclosure, and (5) 100% private financing, (6) verified before construction starts._ Considering anything less just invites a duplicate debacle.
Contact Mayor Menino and Governor Patrick now._ Tell them it?s never acceptable to skip steps in a public process._ Tell them to halt these private meetings, and allow the public to join the re-negotiations.
Ned Flaherty is an urban planning activist, and a co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. He has testified about Boston?s turnpike air rights development for 15 years.
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=letters&sc3=&id=84173
[size=+2]More of the same with new Columbus Center ownership[/size]
South End News, 3 December 2008
(Source: SEN staff)
Columbus Center?s future owners are just as deceptive as the current and former owners.
The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York are proving to be just as deceptive, evasive, and disrespectful of public process as Columbus Center?s former owners (Winn Development) and current owners (California pension plan and MacFarlane Partners)._ The Boston Globe reports that the future owners (Beal & Related) have been pitching revised proposals for the former and current owners, to ?build support among key officials? ? behind closed doors and with no public disclosure (?Columbus Center questions,? 23 November).
The former public relations firm began a news black-out on 8 July, either saying ?no comment? or else refusing to respond altogether._ Now the new public relations firm has followed suit, ignoring multiple public inquiries by mail, facsimile, and phone over the last two months.
No one knows whom the new owners met with, what they promised, or what the outcomes were._ Clearly, the development team is continuing its historical habit of cutting the public out of the process, and announcing results only when it?s too late for citizens to have any impact.
But far worse than back-room negotiating is the fact that the new owners gave dishonest answers to legitimate public questions._ At a city-sponsored neighborhood meeting on 17 September, community leaders asked Beal Senior Vice President & General Counsel Peter Spellios and McDermott Ventures President Pamela McDermott if they were buying the project, or funding it, or lobbying for it._ Backed by Boston Redevelopment Authority Deputy Director Randi Lathrop and other City officials, they denied all three efforts, saying that they were doing nothing but a routine ?cost-cutting analysis.?
Over two months later, the public learns from The Boston Globe that the truth is quite different.
Real estate industry profiteers argue that avoiding the public to cut private deals is excusable, because all developers do that._ It is indeed common._ But it is not ethical._ And it is inexcusable for a private project that would be built on public property, involving public assets, with enormous amounts of public money paying for its costs and its profits.
Even worse than the developers? recent behaviors are the actions of government agencies and elected officials._ We pay civil servants to advocate for us, not to work against us._ Given all this year?s bad news from city, state, and federal offices, there is no doubt about the harmful effects of government secrecy._ The Mayor and the Governor should stop hiding these negotiations, and disclose today:
? Who among our many civil servants met with these developers?
? What other meetings are pending?
? Why didn?t anyone tell the public in advance?
? What parts of their proposal did the developers change?
? What benefits did they delete?
? What profit-boosting components did they add?
? How did city and state officials respond?
? Why are the developers still asking that their costs and profits be paid for by
taxpayers?
The Beal & Related companies that are trying to buy this project for pennies on the dollar first masqueraded as mere cost-cutting accountants, and then excluded the public from re-negotiation discussions._ So they clearly don?t meet the minimum criteria necessary for air rights developers, because they are demanding no competition; are refusing a public process review; aren?t honoring the Turnpike Master Plan; and ? worst of all ? refuse to allow a Commonwealth-sponsored public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.
Did city and state agencies learn nothing after wasting the last 13 years, which ended in failure?_ As State Representative Martha Walz correctly urged on 28 March, it?s time to seek:_ (1) competitive bids, (2) from qualified developers, (3) who honor the Turnpike Master Plan, (4) with full financial disclosure, and (5) 100% private financing, (6) verified before construction starts._ Considering anything less just invites a duplicate debacle.
Contact Mayor Menino and Governor Patrick now._ Tell them it?s never acceptable to skip steps in a public process._ Tell them to halt these private meetings, and allow the public to join the re-negotiations.
Ned Flaherty is an urban planning activist, and a co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. He has testified about Boston?s turnpike air rights development for 15 years.
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=letters&sc3=&id=84173
Re: Columbus Center
It's really funny to quote Rep Walz in an article condemning backroom meetings, when she---in public and on the record---gloats about meetings she's had, backroom, in order to help set the stage for potential developers of other air rights properties.
It's really funny to quote Rep Walz in an article condemning backroom meetings, when she---in public and on the record---gloats about meetings she's had, backroom, in order to help set the stage for potential developers of other air rights properties.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 758
Re: Columbus Center
Seriously, I doubt there would be anyone willing to vie for this property thanks to people like Ned who wishes to follow everything strictly by the book. If everything was followed by the book, the US wouldn't be what it is today. It would have been worse.
Seriously, I doubt there would be anyone willing to vie for this property thanks to people like Ned who wishes to follow everything strictly by the book. If everything was followed by the book, the US wouldn't be what it is today. It would have been worse.
Lurker
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 2,362
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Ned, I think you really ought to research the Beals before slandering them or their company. They are probably the most honest developer, with a decent sense of preservation, one could ever hope for on such a troubled project. That family has also been friendly with many of the property owners in and around Bay Village for years, and I highly doubt they'd go out of their way to destroy the property values of their friends.
Given how long the current saga has played out, no thanks to selfish purely anti-development on empty space people like yourself, I find it hardly unreasonable for Beal to not want to revisit the whole approval process for something already given the green light. What is so terrible about bridging the gap between neighborhoods and covering over a blight of a highway?
I swear, despite your connections to the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods and blatant anti-development bias, your love for a god damned highway view would have placed you in favor of I-695 back in the day.
Ned, I think you really ought to research the Beals before slandering them or their company. They are probably the most honest developer, with a decent sense of preservation, one could ever hope for on such a troubled project. That family has also been friendly with many of the property owners in and around Bay Village for years, and I highly doubt they'd go out of their way to destroy the property values of their friends.
Given how long the current saga has played out, no thanks to selfish purely anti-development on empty space people like yourself, I find it hardly unreasonable for Beal to not want to revisit the whole approval process for something already given the green light. What is so terrible about bridging the gap between neighborhoods and covering over a blight of a highway?
I swear, despite your connections to the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods and blatant anti-development bias, your love for a god damned highway view would have placed you in favor of I-695 back in the day.
Re: Columbus Center
I'm part of a bunch of forums online (having to do with Architecture, Red Sox, Patriots, Disney World, Photography . . . ), and they all call me 'cast'
It was a mistake of mine, when I was around 14 years old and new to the concept of the internet, to use my first and middle initials followed by my last name -- it's wayy too close to "Cat Stevens" (hence another forum nickname: Yusuf Islam)
I'm part of a bunch of forums online (having to do with Architecture, Red Sox, Patriots, Disney World, Photography . . . ), and they all call me 'cast'
It was a mistake of mine, when I was around 14 years old and new to the concept of the internet, to use my first and middle initials followed by my last name -- it's wayy too close to "Cat Stevens" (hence another forum nickname: Yusuf Islam)
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
DarkFenX, Castevens, and Kennedy:_ Since 1996, all Columbus Center developers have insisted that they ?are aware of the questions and challenges, and are prepared to meet them? (letter from MTA to Mayor Menino, 3 October 2000).
They first said they would fully comply with the Master Plan, and then later turned out to lack the skills, experience, and resources needed to do that.
If ? every time a developer fails this way ? you re-write or discard the Master Plan, then you have, in effect, no Master Plan at all._ If every time another student couldn?t graduate, a university simplified its courses and reduced the competency required for certification, then diplomas would eventually become meaningless, and graduates would eventually become useless.
Master Plans exist not only to specify the end results, and to prohibit undesirable outcomes, but also to weed out unqualified players.
When you constantly revise or discard a Master Plan to suit every unqualified applicant and unworthy proposal, then all that remains is the chaos of imbeciles.
DarkFenX, Castevens, and Kennedy:_ Since 1996, all Columbus Center developers have insisted that they ?are aware of the questions and challenges, and are prepared to meet them? (letter from MTA to Mayor Menino, 3 October 2000).
They first said they would fully comply with the Master Plan, and then later turned out to lack the skills, experience, and resources needed to do that.
If ? every time a developer fails this way ? you re-write or discard the Master Plan, then you have, in effect, no Master Plan at all._ If every time another student couldn?t graduate, a university simplified its courses and reduced the competency required for certification, then diplomas would eventually become meaningless, and graduates would eventually become useless.
Master Plans exist not only to specify the end results, and to prohibit undesirable outcomes, but also to weed out unqualified players.
When you constantly revise or discard a Master Plan to suit every unqualified applicant and unworthy proposal, then all that remains is the chaos of imbeciles.
Last edited:
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The Columbus Center proposal failed precisely because Mayor Menino and the MTA skipped developer pre-qualification screening, didn?t require competitive bids, violated the provisions of the Master Plan, never verified the financing, and refused to conduct a public audit of actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.
The ?green light? you imagine was given to a subsidy-free project, which is exactly what the owners never intended to do, and continue refusing to do._ Their written proposal dated 15 May 2003 was for a subsidy-free project, and the city and state approved it only on that basis.
Then the developers got caught seeking massive public subsidies to pay their costs and profits.
If the developers decide to do exactly what they proposed, then there?s no need to repeat the public process._ But they never truly intended to deliver the subsidy-free project that they proposed; instead, they only intended to deliver a project that was fatally dependent upon subsidies.
The final developer needs to do exactly what was proposed and approved, or else propose something else during a new public process review.
I did; hence, the results that I reported previously and below._ None of my posts meet any of the threshold definitions for slander._ I have reported and repeated what the developers have said and done._ It is when their words and deeds don?t match that they become guilty of falsehoods._ But accurately citing someone else?s falsehood, with proper credit, isn?t slander.
No._ It?s dishonest to masquerade as nothing more than cost-cutting consultants, but in fact work as lobbyists getting legislators to start, resume, and increase public subsidies that would pay the developers? costs and profits, all without public notice, and without public recourse.
Firstly, most of Columbus Center sits between the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods; Bay Village is the least relevant._ Secondly, the Beals know property owners all over town, not just in Bay Village._ Thirdly, if you still doubt they?d affect friends? property values, then you haven?t done the very same research that you so heartily recommend._ If you had, you?d already know that they secretly scarfed up land in Allston-Brighton to hide the fact they were amassing it for Harvard University, and you?d already know that they tried to build on Huntington Avenue another bio-terror-lab in a densely populated area.
The Columbus Center controversies so far have not involved any ?anti-development people?, whatever that is._ Far longer than most people in Boston, I have been advocating tunnelization of the entire I-90 corridor, development of the air space above, with competitive bids, from qualified applicants, who follow the Master Plan, and can survive a public audit.
The Columbus Center proposal failed precisely because Mayor Menino and the MTA skipped developer pre-qualification screening, didn?t require competitive bids, violated the provisions of the Master Plan, never verified the financing, and refused to conduct a public audit of actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.
The ?green light? you imagine was given to a subsidy-free project, which is exactly what the owners never intended to do, and continue refusing to do._ Their written proposal dated 15 May 2003 was for a subsidy-free project, and the city and state approved it only on that basis.
Then the developers got caught seeking massive public subsidies to pay their costs and profits.
If the developers decide to do exactly what they proposed, then there?s no need to repeat the public process._ But they never truly intended to deliver the subsidy-free project that they proposed; instead, they only intended to deliver a project that was fatally dependent upon subsidies.
The final developer needs to do exactly what was proposed and approved, or else propose something else during a new public process review.
Nothing._ No one has said there?s anything wrong with that._ So no need to even ask the question.
Last edited:
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]Columbus Center left in limbo[/size]
South End News ? by Bessie King ? Wednesday Dec. 31, 2008
2008 brought inaction more than anything to the Columbus Center project.
In a year of ?change? the story remained the same with the proposed Columbus Center project._ Although some clean-up efforts were started and/or completed in 2008, complaints about and missed opportunities for the Columbus Center marked the last 12 months._ At one point scheduled to be completed by 2011, the Columbus Center ends the year firmly in limbo.
At the end of November The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York (Beal and Related) became the new developers of the project, an $800 million hotel, condo, and retail effort meant to bridge the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods._ The switch of ownership occurred without any notice to the public, which drew ire from critics, such as Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist and co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods.
?The Beal & Related companies that are trying to buy this project for pennies on the dollar first masqueraded as mere cost-cutting accountants, and then excluded the public from re-negotiation discussions,? wrote Flaherty in South End News in December._ ?So they clearly don?t meet the minimum criteria necessary for air rights developers, because they are demanding no competition; are refusing a public process review; aren?t honoring the Turnpike Master Plan; and ? worst of all ? refuse to allow a Commonwealth-sponsored public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.?
Many questions regarding changes to the development?s original proposal, the use of taxpayer money, and whether or not the new proposal will honor the Turnpike Master Plan remain unanswered.
?We all understand that in these difficult economic times some developments will need more time to complete their projects,? said Mayor Thomas Menino, who asked for a clean site during the transition period._ ?But residents and neighborhoods can not be left with vacant construction sites that inconvenience businesses and residents? ability to live and work.?
Beal and Related are major developers and well known consultants._ Beal has extensive experience with development across the region._ The firm owns One Kendall Square, a 10-acre mixed-use development in Cambridge, and manages an extensive list of prominent buildings in and around Boston._ Related Companies is a national developer known for its success on dense urban projects similar to the Columbus Center._ Related developed the Time Warner Center in New York and projects in California, Colorado, Florida, and elsewhere in the U.S.
Perhaps John Keith summed up the state of the Columbus Center best in an August 14 South End News opinion piece entitled ?Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers.?
?After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else,? wrote Keith._ ?It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.?
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=85212&pf=1
[size=+2]Columbus Center left in limbo[/size]
South End News ? by Bessie King ? Wednesday Dec. 31, 2008
2008 brought inaction more than anything to the Columbus Center project.
In a year of ?change? the story remained the same with the proposed Columbus Center project._ Although some clean-up efforts were started and/or completed in 2008, complaints about and missed opportunities for the Columbus Center marked the last 12 months._ At one point scheduled to be completed by 2011, the Columbus Center ends the year firmly in limbo.
At the end of November The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York (Beal and Related) became the new developers of the project, an $800 million hotel, condo, and retail effort meant to bridge the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods._ The switch of ownership occurred without any notice to the public, which drew ire from critics, such as Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist and co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods.
?The Beal & Related companies that are trying to buy this project for pennies on the dollar first masqueraded as mere cost-cutting accountants, and then excluded the public from re-negotiation discussions,? wrote Flaherty in South End News in December._ ?So they clearly don?t meet the minimum criteria necessary for air rights developers, because they are demanding no competition; are refusing a public process review; aren?t honoring the Turnpike Master Plan; and ? worst of all ? refuse to allow a Commonwealth-sponsored public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.?
Many questions regarding changes to the development?s original proposal, the use of taxpayer money, and whether or not the new proposal will honor the Turnpike Master Plan remain unanswered.
?We all understand that in these difficult economic times some developments will need more time to complete their projects,? said Mayor Thomas Menino, who asked for a clean site during the transition period._ ?But residents and neighborhoods can not be left with vacant construction sites that inconvenience businesses and residents? ability to live and work.?
Beal and Related are major developers and well known consultants._ Beal has extensive experience with development across the region._ The firm owns One Kendall Square, a 10-acre mixed-use development in Cambridge, and manages an extensive list of prominent buildings in and around Boston._ Related Companies is a national developer known for its success on dense urban projects similar to the Columbus Center._ Related developed the Time Warner Center in New York and projects in California, Colorado, Florida, and elsewhere in the U.S.
Perhaps John Keith summed up the state of the Columbus Center best in an August 14 South End News opinion piece entitled ?Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers.?
?After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else,? wrote Keith._ ?It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.?
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=85212&pf=1
- Status