Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Instead of wagering for entertainment, I?ll just give some key historical facts that others can rely upon when placing their own bets.

First proposed on 18 December 1996, Columbus Center is now a 14-year-old juvenile delinquent:_ few friends, fewer skills, nil assets, no revenue, and zero prospects.

Governor Patrick rescinded state subsidies 1-1/2 years ago._ Every bank ever asked to fund the proposal has refused._ Even the $245 billion owners, CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, cut off funding in September 2007 because they didn?t have enough faith in the scheme to dare risking their own money.

The latest approved schedule, negotiated between the state and the developer, and agreed to in January 2008, called for completion no later than 2026, but now even that far-off date is being re-negotiated for a much later curtain.

As I?ve been saying for several years, all this ? and much more ? can be found in the public records.
 
Re: Columbus Center

The Clarendon (Columbus Center Tower 1) was selling hot when it first went on the market, and this led to Beal's interest in the adjoining sites. Now that the Clarendon's sales have cooled off considerably, and the "One Back Bay" rental brand has been introduced, there is little interest in building the other towers of Columbus Center.

When will it get built? Simple - when the economy dictates a profit here.
 
Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Pike to pay for Columbus cleanup[/size]

Columbus-cleanup.jpg

Photo by John Wilcox

CART OFF: The Mass. Turnpike Authority will pick up the $100,000 tab to clean up part of the stalled Columbus Center project near Cortes Street.

By Herald Staff ? August 18, 2009

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority officials said yesterday they will initially pick up the $100,000 tab for cleaning up part of the stalled Columbus Center construction site.

?This will stabilize the situation in response to the neighborhood?s concerns,? said Turnpike Authority Executive Director Jeffrey Mullan of a plan to remove debris along Cortes Street and plant grass. The cleanup should take six weeks and the Pike hopes to be paid back by the developer.

A spokeswoman for the project declined comment. The development team includes California pension-fund affiliate MacFarlane Partners and Winn Cos. of Boston with consultants The Beal Cos. and The Related Cos.

The $850 million, 1.3-million-square-foot condo, hotel and retail project has been in the works for about 13 years. The seven-acre project was supposed to be built on a deck over the Pike with a new park linking the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods, but funding woes put the project on hold last year.

Neighbors have complained about the unfinished business.

?The neighbors are right,? said Peter O?Connor, the Pike?s deputy secretary for real estate and economic development. ?There?s a wind screen that runs the length of Cortes Street and effectively blocks the eyes on the street. . . . I think we?ve seen an increase in petty crime and more homeless people camping out there.?

Mullan said the state is working with the Boston Redevelopment Authority to keep the project viable, but ?we don?t believe (the developers) are going to do anything any time soon.?

http://www.bostonherald.com/busines..._columbus_cleanup/srvc=business&position=also
 
Re: Columbus Center

Thanks, Herald, for locating my missing shopping cart.
 
Re: Columbus Center

It's ironic how the neighborhood residents who through up so many barriers are now begging to have them removed.
 
Re: Columbus Center

This is a shameful situation. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for this. Much as I want to see this project move forward, Winn should lose all its rights to this site if they are unable or unwilling to clean up their own mess.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I feel bad for the Cortes Street residents - they (like most of the community) were extremely supportive of this project. After having to endure decades facing a traffic gutter, they were finally getting the wound facing their brownstones fixed. Now, they are worse off than before, as the trees that offered just a little protection from the noise of the Mass Pike are gone.

BTW - anyone else feel the shopping cart prop was staged there by the Herald reporter? A little too perfectly framed...
 
Re: Columbus Center

My guess is that the cart belongs to the South Bay Home Depot. It may have been tossed over the construction fence by hooligans.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Maybe, but the Prudential Shaw's is a lot closer, as are lots of CVS stores.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ron Newman said:
Maybe, but the Prudential Shaw's is a lot closer, as are lots of CVS stores.
Click to expand...

Prudential Shaws doesn't use that type of cart.

I don't shop at CVS or Target, so I don't know about them.
 
Re: Columbus Center

sidewalks said:
This is a shameful situation. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for this. Much as I want to see this project move forward, Winn should lose all its rights to this site if they are unable or unwilling to clean up their own mess.
Click to expand...

I agree. The state will not get this money back.
 
Re: Columbus Center

sidewalks said:
This is a shameful situation. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for this. Much as I want to see this project move forward, Winn should lose all its rights to this site if they are unable or unwilling to clean up their own mess.
Click to expand...


Is there a way the state can take the project approvals and designs by eminent domain/force Winn to sell by threatening a lawsuit, and sell them to another developer to recoup the costs of cleanup?

The buyer will receive the approval and building designs.

I think a lawsuit is the only other way to recoup costs. Unless Winn is bankrupt, he should have to pay.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Very sad it was only a matter of time before the states start using the stimulus packages, bailout for their friends.
I guess these developers don't have to risk anything anymore they just pay off the politicians then they steal your taxpayers money because they are so incompetent to get the job done.
I have no respect for any of these scumbags anymore.

Remember this......History will show that this 2008-2012era was nothing more than protectionism and Facism.
 
Re: Columbus Center

This was taken from the One Kenmore thread:
But perhaps most important to Fenway Center?s odds of success is the Patrick administration?s willingness to help pay for the higher costs associated with building over the turnpike, rather than on the ground. Instead of requiring Rosenthal to pay the full cost of the deck, the state would pay up to $30 million toward that additional cost.
Click to expand...

So Ned was wrong, the cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground. If you read the news article in the One Kenmore thread, I think it would have been better to thrown the money on CC seeing how construciton would have started earlier and that's it was a larger project that would have given the state a larger revenue.
 
Re: Columbus Center

pelhamhall said:
. . . Cortes Street residents . . . (like most of the community) were extremely supportive of this project. After having to endure decades facing a traffic gutter, they were finally getting the wound facing their brownstones fixed.
Click to expand...

No, on both counts:_ (1) support and (2) brownstones.

Support._ Re-read the public records._ The vast majority of people in the surrounding communities opposed the proposal for many reasons; the supportive comment letters were far fewer, and mostly from people who had been offered cash, jobs, and prizes, such as the hotel workers union, the valet parking attendant employees, out-of-town/out-of-state construction workers, and charities that wanted the cash that the developers offered to buy their support.

Brownstones._ Brownstone is a brown, Triassic period sandstone commonly used to build row houses in New York and Chicago, but almost never in Boston._ There are no brownstones on Cortes Street.
 
Re: Columbus Center

palindrome said:
Is there a way the state can take the project approvals and designs by eminent domain/force Winn to sell by threatening a lawsuit, and sell them to another developer to recoup the costs of cleanup? . . . I think a lawsuit is the only other way to recoup costs. Unless Winn is bankrupt, he should have to pay.
Click to expand...

All this continued talk of ?Winn?, ?lawsuits?, and ?seizing designs by eminent domain? just further proves the same problem that I?ve been noting for over 2 years now:_ forum members are mis-informed and un-informed._ For all those who still haven?t read the public records about this project, these 8 clarifications should help.

1. Municipal approvals can?t be seized by eminent domain.
2. Architectural designs can?t be seized by eminent domain.
3. Eminent domain proceedings apply only to land.
4. Arthur Winn sold this proposal to California (CalPERS, CUIP, and MURC) 3-1/2 years ago, on 15 March 2006.
5. Now retired, Winn is only just barely involved.
6. Since engaging The Beal Companies and The Related Companies as ?cost-cutting consultants? one year ago, California has been considering forcing Winn out altogether.
7. California signed a lease with Massachusetts 3-1/2 years ago, on 2 May 2006.
8. All control and responsibility has rested with California since then.
9. All liability rests with the Columbus Center company, which is nothing more than an empty corporate shell, created by California, to never have any assets or revenue, so that it would always be litigation-proof.
 
Re: Columbus Center

So much time and brain power spent and wasted arguing about some obscure mediocre neighborhood project....and to top it off...it's done with a snide and condescending attitude.

You sir...are a clown.
 
Re: Columbus Center

KentXie said:
So Ned was wrong, the cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground.
Click to expand...

KentXie, apparently you never learned the difference between ?construction? cost and ?development? cost._ Misunderstanding about this is common; other forum members also easily confuse these two terms.

I never said that the ?cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground? as you wrote._ In fact, both the Fenway Center owner and the Commonwealth admitted in this morning?s Boston Globe that the 3 most important financial figures ? tunnel cost, total development cost, and state rent revenue ? all remain unknown.

The public records have shown for years that Columbus Center?s total development cost (acquisition + construction + financing + administration) over discounted air rights property is the same or less than the total development cost for equivalent buildings over fair-market-value land.

Columbus Center?s mythical ?deck premium? does not exist; the project owners fabricated that idea to fool the public, including students, hobbyists, lobbyists, reporters, politicians, and lots of other people, all of whom should have known better.

The reason that the Columbus Center owners have refused for 14 years to allow a public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies is because such an audit would show that their ?deck premium? is nothing but a myth, created to boost their private profit at public expense.

Re-read my post #1278 on 21 August 2008.

KentXie said:
. . . it would have been better to thrown the money on CC seeing how construction would have started earlier and that's it was a larger project that would have given the state a larger revenue.
Click to expand...

No._ Re-read the 3,400-page lease._ An earlier start date does not increase the rent paid to the state._ Furthermore, Columbus Center?s owners tricked the Commonwealth into postponing all rent until Columbus Center?s accountants admit that the project shows a profit._ One primary goal that accountants have is to reduce taxable profit to zero and thus avoid paying taxes._ So, no matter how much actual profit occurs, Columbus Center?s accountants will always adjust their bookkeeping to show zero profit, so that they never have to pay the state any rent.

Remember:_ the owners stopped funding their own project in September 2007, and every commercial bank that was asked to fund the project refused._ Public subsidies can?t save any project that is in this much distress, so any expenditure would have been a total waste._ That?s why no subsidy funds were ever released to Columbus Center.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top