Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

[A.]Untrue._ The thousands of studies I?ve referred to since 2007 cover all three sizes of particulate matter:_ coarse, fine, and ultrafine._ The older studies focus more on coarse and fine particles, and the newer ones more on ultrafine particles (UFPs)._ Those thousands of studies are found or referenced at the links I?ve provided multiple times._ No scientific or medical literature has been published that ?debunks? these studies.



[B.]You?re only bewildered because you don?t recall exactly what I said._ I?ve always recognized the differences between coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles, but all particulate matter is an outstanding issue ? in all three sizes ? at any air rights site in Boston.



[C.]Untrue._ I?ve always acknowledged that gradual, small improvements are occurring with fine particles._ But much more abatement of fine particles is possible, and much, much more abatement of ultrafine particles is possible, since there?s virtually no abatement now._ All in all, no one should be allowed to build anything that creates unnecessary, avoidable public health risks, and that?s what the latest Columbus Center and Fenway Center proposals would do, as currently written.



[D.]Untrue._ I never suggested that Massachusetts and California have the same weather._ In fact, I?ve always acknowledged just what the PM studies acknowledge:_ that location can affect the detailed statistics about who is affected, by which health risks, how soon, how badly, etcetera._ And that is one of the reasons that Massachusetts air rights developers now are required to quantify and mitigate the public health risks posed by their proposals.

A.) You are obfuscating. No one disputes that thousands of studies of particulates exist, but studies devoted exclusively to UFP are still few and far between. And a study of coarse or fine particulates cannot be extrapolated as covering UFPs as well. So your persistent claim of thousands of studies on UFPs is hokum.

B.) You have embellished your crusade against Columbus Center, and by extension the Turnpike Authority and the MBTA, by invoking the spectre of UFPs. I believe you have done so because UFPs, unlike the larger particulates, are neither currently regulated nor abated. One couldn't complain that Columbus Center would further pollute the environment when the sources of pollution in the immediate area are already being regulated. Columbus Center can't effectively address a pollutant straw man; against what UFP standard does one gauge effect? And which is why you have proposed, in the absence of a standard, that Columbus Center, as a matter of course, massively scrub the air in the vicinity of your condo of UFPs emitted by cars, trucks, and buses traveling the Pike, and the MBTA's diesel trains.

C.) Given your extensive knowledge of the science of fine particles and ultrafine particles, and of the technology for abating the leveld of these two classes of particulates in the ambient air, approximately what percentage of UFP emissions do you think will be abated as a consequence of further controls of fine particulates? To make it simpler, you can confine the analysis to diesel engines.

D.) You have regularly cited the several UFP studies that have been done, and abatement strategies resulting from those. The studies and the strategies are concentrated in southern California. You persist in asserting that what's good for Covina is good for Clarendon St.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Pike slammed for putting off air-rights plan[/size]
Boston Herald ? June 5, 2009 ? By Thomas Grillo

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has shelved a planned air-rights project near the Prudential Center that could net the cash-starved agency millions in leasing fees.

Pike officials have told the Boston Redevelopment Authority that it does not expect to select a developer anytime soon for Parcels 12-15 straddling Boston?s Back Bay and Fenway neighborhoods.

City Council President Michael Ross blasted the agency for the decision. ?The developers should be given a chance to present their vision to the community and fill a gaping hole in the neighborhood,? he said. ?The Turnpike doesn?t have any money; why would they miss a chance to earn some??

In December, four developers offered competing plans, from housing to offices, that would transform a section of Boylston Street and Massachusetts Avenue and fill the space above the east-west highway.

At the time, the agency said the proposals offer opportunities to ?fill in gaps over the turnpike and create stronger connections between the Pru, the Back Bay, Fenway, Kenmore Square and Massachusetts Avenue corridor.?

Carpenter & Co. proposed a 200-room hotel and office tower. The Chiofaro Co. pitched a 25-story office building. Weiner Ventures offered a 40-story tower with office and housing. And Trinity Financial was willing to build 546 units of housing in a pair of buildings at 11 and 14 stories.

But the Pike?s real estate projects appear to be in flux with the recent layoff of Stephen Hines, its chief development officer, and Shirin Karanfiloglu, a planner.

Jeffrey B. Mullan, the Turnpike?s executive director, did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

Patrick Lee, principal at Trinity, said he wants to know how long the project will be delayed. ?There?s an opportunity to build support for this project within the community now,? he said. ?Having it ready to go when the economy turns is in the public?s interest.?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority halted its work on Columbus Center in April 2009, just as the Columbus Center company halted its work in April 2008.

In both instances, work stopped because resources were exhausted. MTA has no schedule or plan for resuming any air rights development work.

I-90 air rights development had been managed by only two Massachusetts Turnpike Authority positions, and both were eliminated in April 2009: Chief Development Officer Stephen Hines ($136,475/year) and Director of Development & Planning Shirin Karanfiloglu.

MTA has no plans for additional work on any of the 8 proposals or 12 properties that had been pending for up to 13 years.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Starting to be regulated ≠ is regulated . . .

Untrue._ ?Starting to be regulated? means a process has already begun being regulated, and some regulation is in effect, which is the case here in Massachusetts.

. . . Some locations ≠ Boston or Massachusetts . . .

Untrue again._ Regulation has begun across Massachusetts, including Boston._ When the Commonwealth began regulating ultrafine particulate matter on 14 November 2008, the state ordered the owners of Fenway Center to:

(1) address environmental impacts ? actual and potential ? of turnpike tunnel ventilation;
(2) identify on-site mitigation measures to reduce occupants? exposure to ultrafine particulate matter.

The owners said they would quantify and mitigate as directed._ They have not done so._ Their proposal can not proceed until these (and other outstanding environmental issues) are resolved to the state?s satisfaction.

You may want to re-read my explanation of this in post #1729 on 29 April 2009.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

Untrue._ ?Starting to be regulated? means a process has already begun being regulated, and some regulation is in effect, which is the case here in Massachusetts.



Untrue again._ Regulation has begun across Massachusetts, including Boston._ When the Commonwealth began regulating ultrafine particulate matter on 14 November 2008, the state ordered the owners of Fenway Center to:

(1) address environmental impacts ? actual and potential ? of turnpike tunnel ventilation;
(2) identify on-site mitigation measures to reduce occupants? exposure to ultrafine particulate matter.

The owners said they would quantify and mitigate as directed._ They have not done so._ Their proposal can not proceed until these (and other outstanding environmental issues) are resolved to the state?s satisfaction.

You may want to re-read my explanation of this in post #1729 on 29 April 2009.

The key point in this response is 14 November 2008. The proposal for Columbus Center was before that thus this development project was not subjugated to the regulation when under review. In other words, UFP regulation is not a matter that CC had to address.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

The key point in this response is 14 November 2008. The proposal for Columbus Center was before that thus this development project was not subjugated to the regulation when under review. In other words, UFP regulation is not a matter that CC had to address.

Yes, Columbus Center was first proposed in 1996, and yes, the partially approved proposal omitted UFPs from its Final Environmental Impact Report published over 6 years ago.

But the state never issued permission to build either the buildings above, or the tunnels below, for the reasons that I previously listed._ Consequently, the state?s 2003 environmental Certificate expired because the owners failed to accomplish major steps, and failed to accomplish them in a continuous sequence.

California might request a new Certificate to replace the expired one, or might file a new proposal altogether, but either way, when that time comes, the latest criteria will be applied by a growing list of city, state, and federal agencies, including MSTA, EOT, EOE&EA, H&HS, DPH, DEP, BPHC, EPA, and so on.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . your persistent claim of thousands of studies on UFPs is hokum. . .

You often write ?thousands of UFP studies? but that is your claim, not mine.

The National Library of Medicine has thousands of scientific studies on particulate matter, and many studies on ultrafine particulate matter, most added since 1996 (when Columbus Center was first proposed).

Once again, my claims are that:

1. The existing research, on coarse, fine, and ultrafine matter shows that rates of birth defects, incurable illness, and early mortality all are aggravated by building offices and homes immediately over near-source pollution, as the owners propose to do.

2. Capturing, concentrating, and venting that pollution into the adjacent community is the full opposite of what the developers testified they would do, which was build ?hermetically sealed? [airtight] tunnels that would cleanse the community?s air, not worsen it.

. . . Columbus Center can't effectively address a pollutant straw man; against what UFP standard does one gauge effect? . . .

There are many standards against which results can be measured. Here are two.
● First, the ?do-no-harm? standard: do not increase exposure for people working or living along the corridor.
● Second, the standard promised by California during testimony to Boston City Council: the tunnels have ?hermetically sealed? (air-tight) tunnels which cleanse the community?s air space.

If you feel that the second standard is dishonest, or impractical, or expensive, do not argue with me, because it was the project owners? proposal, not mine._ If building what they proposed is inconvenient or impossible, then they need to either file a new proposal, or else return the state income taxes and the 19 years of city property taxes that were waived based on the promise of ?hermetically sealed? (air-tight) tunnels.

. . . what percentage of UFP emissions do you think will be abated as a consequence of further controls of fine particulates? . . .

EPA began deliberating what to do on 24 February 2009, after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared current EPA regulatory levels inadequate._ I do not know what EPA will decide._ But updated federal regulations are imminent.

. . . The studies and the strategies are concentrated in southern California. You persist in asserting that what's good for Covina is good for Clarendon St.

Particulate matter ? and especially ultrafine particulate matter ? causes fundamental damage to human bodies that been measured and studied in many climates worldwide._ While geography and climate lead to tiny differences in various individuals, the overall public health risks ? birth defects, incurable illness (heart disease, lung disease, cancer), and premature mortality ? remain consistent._ So, yes, reductions of ultrafine particulate matter are beneficial in climates both similar to and different from Boston?s climate.

As expected, cities with the biggest improvements in air quality also are seeing the biggest improvements in life expectancy, even a city like Boston, which has relatively clean air and generally good health care._ The U.S. Office of Budget and Management has shown that the public health benefits of controlling fine particle pollution vastly outweigh the costs._ See ?Clean Air, Longer Life? by Douglas Dockery, Harvard Magazine, 15 April 2009 at www.HSPH.Harvard.edu/faculty/douglas-dockery.

The damage from ultrafine particles is greater than from fine particles, so the cost-benefit ratio for controlling ultrafine exposure is even better than the cost-benefit ratio for controlling fine particles.

 

[bbfen]

Re: Columbus Center

MTA has no schedule or plan for resuming any air rights development work.

IMG

Congratulations, you obstructionist-isolationist. While I in no way credit you with anything more than being an hysterical, annoying gnat, the outcome is as you desired: no construction.

Kindly now shut your piehole and know when to walk away.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . the outcome is as you desired: no construction . . .

No, BBFen, you must be thinking of someone else, and may be in the wrong thread altogether.

For 16 years, I have advocated to tunnel the entire corridor below, and develop it above._ I never advocated, here or anywhere, for ?no construction? as you wrote.

I have always promoted responsible development, by screened developers, with competitive bids, that honor the Turnpike Master Plan, after financial disclosure, without adding environmental hazards or public health risks.

But all proposals to do so were refused via an illegal, no-bid deal struck between the current developer and a former Turnpike Chairman who was later found guilty of fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Everyone who regrets 14 years of ?no construction? ? as I do ? should take up their complaints with the developers ? as I did ? because they are the ones who never got the approvals, designs, insurance, investors, and funding needed to start construction.

. . . know when to walk away.

It is unlikely that any citizen will walk away now. Having defaulted on the lease over 3 years ago, this developer?s pending eviction is actually the brightest spot in this whole, 14-year travesty.

Once this tenant is gone, the MSTA can seek competitive bids from screened developers who respect the Master Plan, financial disclosure, and the environment.

Provided that politicians do not sell control over the outcome to the developer (as they did in 1996 and 2000), and provided that developers do not submit fraudulent subsidy applications, then the next public process can be easier, faster, and end with a proposal that actually gets built.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Developers Say ?Nobody Home? At Turnpike Real Estate Division[/size]

By Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer Paul McMorrow ? June 4, 2009

Chaos and understaffing at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has left at least two major Boston development initiatives stuck in the mud, sources tell Banker & Tradesman, as crushing debt, political infighting and a personnel exodus have caused the agency to suspend virtually all major real estate decisions.

"They're in complete turmoil," said one development source. "There's nobody home."

"Nothing is happening at all," said another, complaining that development bids from Faneuil Hall to the Back Bay have ground to a halt. "They don't have anybody in place. Nobody's in there to make things move."

In the span of one week in early May, the Pike laid off its chief development officer and most of its real estate support staff, and saw its executive director resign amid a firestorm of criticism. Since then, many in Boston's development community complain they've heard nothing but silence from the agency.

In mid-January, the agency announced a dramatic plan to sell off its 11 roadside service plazas. The four bidders chasing those properties are still waiting for word of their fate.

In announcing the service plaza sale, transportation secretary James Aloisi pledged to move quickly to "dismantle" the Pike. He said that, as a manifestation of that commitment, he would dispose of the plazas "in a matter of a couple months," adding, ""We want it expedited. We don't want it to linger."

That haste seems to have waned. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently told Banker & Tradesman that Aloisi informed him that all major real estate decisions are on hold. Aloisi told Menino that the Pike wouldn't be pulling the trigger on any major real estate leases or designations until Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature come to an agreement on the troubled agency's future.

"They're going through a reorganization," Menino said, referring to the transportation consolidation bill that's currently stalled in a legislative conference committee. "Once it's completed, they'll move forward. Jim Aloisi said to me, ?Why start the [development] process and not finish it up?'"

An Aloisi spokesman denied that account, saying, "Nothing is on hold."

Other Mass. Delays

The Pike had also been expected to tap a developer for a long-vacant parcel along the Rose Kennedy Greenway in mid-April; a long-delayed request for proposals on the parcel finally went out last October, and bidders are still waiting for the Pike to name a winner.

Bids on a series of Pike air rights parcels in the Back Bay were delivered to the agency in early December, and over the past six months, the development process for those properties has gone no further.

"I'm hearing [the air rights development] is stalled," said city council president Michael Ross. "It's unfortunate. If done correctly, air rights development has the potential to reconnect neighborhoods and bring vitality to otherwise-dead spots. Good planning takes place during a down economy. We should be preparing today for Boston to come out of this. If we don't use this time wisely, other cities will, and we will lose."

In the wake of May's mass layoffs, the Pike is operating with a skeletal real estate staff. All operations are being funneled into the Executive Office of Transportation, which is also handling all real estate planning for MassHighway and the MBTA.

The planned consolidation of the Pike, MassHighway and the T has been hampered, though, by bitter conflict between Aloisi, Patrick, and Senate President Therese Murray. Aloisi has repeatedly thrown barbs Murray's way, and the Senate president has reciprocated by savaging Aloisi and his boss in the press.

Murray and the governor are also warring over how to pay for the state's overwhelming transportation bills. Patrick has pushed a 19-cent gas tax increase, which the House and Senate rejected in favor of a 25-percent sales tax hike. The governor promptly threatened to veto that hike, raising the prospect of massive Pike toll increases this summer. A failure to resolve the impasse will likely junk the Pike's bond rating and trigger costly swaption contracts.

The calendar is also working against the reorganization that Aloisi is reportedly subjugating his real estate processes to. On Beacon Hill, legislators traditionally devote nearly all of their springtime work hours to passing a budget before retiring from the Hill for the summer. The current legislative session has been marked by fewer formal sessions and poorer committee attendance than usual, and those two trends don't bode well for the prospect of conference committees working overtime.

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news133226.html

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

But the state never issued permission to build either the buildings above, or the tunnels below, for the reasons that I previously listed._

But the approval process started, and by following your own logic starting the approval process = approval.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: Columbus Center

This would be the best headlines in BOSTON of 09.........Mass Turnpike Blows up and does not exsist anymore. No more TOLLS

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

But the approval process started, and by following your own logic starting the approval process = approval.

No._ That?s not my logic._ I never said that merely starting an approval process is the same thing as ending it successfully._ For example, 8 public subsidies are still being sought, their review/approval processes never finished, and those subsidies were never issued.

If you re-read the 3,400-page lease, you?ll see that there are at least 36 required approvals._ If you re-read the newspaper articles since 2005, you?ll also see that at the time that California defaulted on the lease over 3 years ago, 75% of those approvals had yet to be obtained._ And, in addition to those 27 approvals, at least 3 major new ones have arisen since:

? Commonwealth approval of $295 million in performance bonds
? Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the original ?deck-based? tunnel design
? Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the new ?platform-based? tunnel design

Last September, an attorney representing the California owners announced that he?d replaced the original ?deck-based? tunnel designs with cheaper, faster, less durable ?platform-based? tunnel designs that he said would save the project from financial failure._ Nearly one year later, it?s clear that the new design did not provide any of that financial momentum._ Moreover, the ?platform-based? tunnel designs have yet to be (a) drawn, (b) submitted, and (c) signed off by the Commonwealth?s sworn, independent, quality-control engineers.

In summary, many approvals have yet to be given, and regardless of how far along in review they may or may not be, only after a review process is completed successfully can an approval be considered given.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

No._ That?s not my logic._ I never said that merely starting an approval process is the same thing as ending it successfully._ For example, 8 public subsidies are still being sought, their review/approval processes never finished, and those subsidies were never issued.

If you re-read the 3,400-page lease, you?ll see that there are at least 36 required approvals._ If you re-read the newspaper articles since 2005, you?ll also see that at the time that California defaulted on the lease over 3 years ago, 75% of those approvals had yet to be obtained._ And, in addition to those 27 approvals, at least 3 major new ones have arisen since:

? Commonwealth approval of $295 million in performance bonds
? Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the original ?deck-based? tunnel design
? Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the new ?platform-based? tunnel design

Last September, an attorney representing the California owners announced that he?d replaced the original ?deck-based? tunnel designs with cheaper, faster, less durable ?platform-based? tunnel designs that he said would save the project from financial failure._ Nearly one year later, it?s clear that the new design did not provide any of that financial momentum._ Moreover, the ?platform-based? tunnel designs have yet to be (a) drawn, (b) submitted, and (c) signed off by the Commonwealth?s sworn, independent, quality-control engineers.

In summary, many approvals have yet to be given, and regardless of how far along in review they may or may not be, only after a review process is completed successfully can an approval be considered given.

He's talking about how you said "'Starting to be regulated' means a process has already begun being regulated" in an earlier post. Thus by your logic he is saying, starting the approval process means it is approved.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Calling Mr. Flaherty. You are wanted on the International Hotel thread!

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

He's talking about how you said "'Starting to be regulated' means a process has already begun being regulated" in an earlier post. Thus by your logic he is saying, starting the approval process means it is approved.

Thanks for the clarification.

But my logic applies the same way in both situations.

?Starting to be regulated? means a toxin is partially ? but not fully ? regulated.
?Partially approved? means a proposal is partially ? but not fully ? approved.

There is some regulation, just as there is some approval, but the toxin needs more regulation, just as the proposal needs more approval.

 

[jass]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: Dirty air stuff

By the time this is built, shouldnt we expect that a decent portion of the cars on the highway will be partially or fully electric, thus causing the particle effect to be a mute issue?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . By the time this is built, shouldnt we expect that a decent portion of the cars on the highway will be partially or fully electric, thus causing the particle effect to be a mute issue?

Once all-electric transportation is achieved, the issue will be moot, not mute.

Note the project?s 30-year time line._ Columbus Center was proposed in 1996, and the latest agreement negotiated with the Turnpike Authority requires grand opening by 2026._ But the developers spent the last 1.5 years begging for additional time beyond that._ Turnpike officials have granted every delay the developers requested over the last 14 years._ Given that history, it?s clear that the next agreed upon completion date could easily be 2030, or even later.

Note, too, that fundamental societal changes like converting to all-electric transportation invariably carry a complex set of financial, political, cultural, technical, and natural factors that affect each other, and that complicate the scheduling._ So while the conversion to electric cars is already underway, there?s no fixed timetable by which anyone can say when it will finish, and the separate timetables for trucks, buses, and diesel trains will all be different.

Since particulate matter air pollution is expected to continue indefinitely, mitigation for it needs to continue for approximately the same period.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

I'm still dying for Beal to release his re-design. Very curious and excited.

I really can't wait for the capital markets to soften so that this approved project can get back under construction!

What were we arguing about again?

Oh right, nothing.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . this approved project . . .

When re-reading the public records, note that among the many approvals never given are these:

? state approvals of 5 new leases to replace the defaulted ones
? state approvals of new tunnel designs
? state approvals of performance bonds for $295 million
? city approvals to erect buildings
? agency approvals of subsidies previously disapproved
? lender approvals of construction loans

There are serious reasons that each approval was never given._ When a developer is unable to produce the property, plans, bonds, permits, and financing ? especially after 14 years of trying ? treating a project as categorically ?approved? is na?ve.