Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

State may absorb $30m on project built over Pike

Governor Deval Patrick?s administration is offering to absorb up to $30 million of a developer?s cost to build a mammoth complex above the Massachusetts Turnpike, in hopes of jump-starting construction over the highway after the most recent effort, Columbus Center, stalled.

http://www.boston.com/realestate/ne...te_may_absorb_30m_on_pike_air_rights_project/

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

...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...

I'm a little surprised Ned, being the evidence-based individual he is, would make such a claim that is impossible to both prove or disprove. Tsk Tsk.

A side note, Cortes street is part of the Bay Village, the neighborhood association of which was for the project.

"In a prepared statement, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association said its executive committee unanimously supported the $400 million Columbus Center ..."
Boston Globe, June 06, 2003


.. just to be thorough, from the BVNA newsletter, dated June 2003

"The Executive Committee of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association has voted unanimously to support the project as proposed and following numerous changes by the developer in response to community input."

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

So much time and brain power spent and wasted arguing about some obscure mediocre neighborhood project . . .

Wrong, on three counts: ?obscure?, ?mediocre?, and ?neighborhood?.

?Obscure? ? The project?s not ?obscure? as you wrote._ Now in its 14th year of being re-proposed, while Commonwealth bulldozers remove all traces of it, Columbus Center is Boston?s longest running urban planning failure, ever._ It?s also the biggest subsidy-sucker of its kind, ever.

The public discussions aren?t just about the usual doorknobs and shrubbery; the debate encompasses public process, master planning, taxation, elected officials, bribery, public subsidies to private profiteers, and much more._ Over the years, it?s grabbed the attention of many state legislators, Mayor Menino, five governors, and the White House (yes, the White House).

Moreover, it has kept the attention of state and federal investigative agencies for over 2 years.

Of this forum?s several hundred topics, this thread has the third most views, and only one other thread has more replies._ So no, it?s not obscure at all.

?Mediocre? ? Your fellow forum members certainly don?t find the proposal ?mediocre? at all. For over three years, nearly 2,000 members have posted here, usually calling it:

?wonderful?
?beautiful?
?beautiful tower?
?beautiful park?
?a great improvement?
?reconnects three neighborhoods?
?NO negatives?
?a utilitarian benefit to the city as a whole?
?a public benefit?
?amazing benefits to the environment?
?an incredible and lasting benefit?
?repairing the Turnpike scar?
?making this part of the city whole again?
?a net benefit to the city fiscally?
?a built neighborhood where before there was nothing?
?a vibrant retail / shopping district?
?signature architectural design?
etcetera.

A handful of forum members don?t like certain details in the design, but such complaints are few.

?Neighborhood? ? Your labeling of the proposal as a ?neighborhood project? does not in any way dismiss, disregard, or diminish it, nor does that kind of name-calling reduce its significance in any way._ Remember:_ every proposal exists in some neighborhood; there?s no proposal that doesn?t._ When you call any proposal a ?neighborhood? proposal you inform no one, and add nothing to the discussion.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

...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...

I'm a little surprised Ned, being the evidence-based individual he is, would make such a claim that is impossible to both prove or disprove.

Thanks for the compliment, Wocket, but proving/disproving this claim is easy for anyone who knows the communities, attends the meetings, and reads the public records._ I pulled the public comment letters, identified the writers, and matched them to the community beneficiaries list published by the developers._ Some of the endorsers weren?t on the beneficiary list, but many of those were either employed by Columbus Center, or else people hoping to hop onto the development industry gravy train.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

"In a prepared statement, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association said its executive committee unanimously supported the $400 million Columbus Center ..."
Boston Globe, June 06, 2003

By itself, your above statement is irrelevant and misleading, because from 4 October 2001 through 4 February 2003, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association officially opposed the Columbus Center proposal.

But then the developers told BVNA President John Shope (56 Fayette Street) and BVNA Vice President & Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Christine Colley (43 Melrose Street) that they could get their very own park-ette, right in front of Shope?s home, and only one block from Colley?s home._ With the assurance of that quid pro quo, the BVNA officers reversed the association?s official position, with virtually no advance notice to their membership.

Colley then railroaded through a final CCCAC (Columbus Center Citizens Advisory Committee) vote in favor of the proposal._ The final vote was 7 in favor, 4 opposed: members sitting in seats owned by the development team and real estate industry all voted in favor; members democratically nominated by their communities all voted opposed._ Having done exactly as the developer and BRA wished, and having betrayed the public trust, Colley then secured for herself a BRA job that has since cost the public over a million dollars for Colley and 3 subordinates._ But, by her own admission, virtually nothing has been accomplished in the 5 years that she?s held that job sucking down public dollars._ Except that she has, of couse, kept in touch with Mr. Shope, as they commiserate and wait for their ill-gotten park-ette to arrive (or not).

In a final irony, as BRA Deputy Director for Compliance, Colley?s job was to track developer promises, fulfill broken promises, make developers keep all other promises, and ensure that no developer ever leaves the public at the altar, or in the lurch._ In her role, she should have ensured that the 7-acre site got restored at no cost to the public._ But she reported nothing in that regard, and now the Commonwealth ? and all its citizens ? are sadly picking up the tab.

The relevant maps can be seen in forum post #268 on 28 August 2007.

 

[bostonbred]

Re: Columbus Center

Mr Ned F is KILLING you here I am thinking so time for you to o advance to you REAR behind France style MAGNETO LINE!!!. (LOL) for drink at Aqwitane.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

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.

And how sure of this are you? You sound more of a conspiracy theorist to make such an accustation. But what would more likely provide a profit? A development with two years of construction, or a development that has yet to start?

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.

Of course you didn't say that, I was the one that did. Regardless of the "construction" cost and "development" cost, the total cost to develop an air right including construction of all parts is greater than that of a project over solid ground which you vehemently argued otherwise. Read the news article which states the One Kenmore project as being cheaper than CC because more of it is built on land and how the government has recognized that decking over the pike is more expensive than just building on land. You said they admitted it. Let me see the article. Until then, good day to you sir.

Anyways, I'm starting to be glad CC did not move forward. Originally, CC was to include two towers before being reduced to one tower and one midrise. Hopefully the new developers will propose a twin tower complex.

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: Columbus Center

Mr Ned F is KILLING you here I am thinking so time for you to o advance to you REAR behind France style MAGNETO LINE!!!. (LOL) for drink at Aqwitane.

I'll have whatever this guy is drinking/smoking/snorting.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

Boston.com provided a nice little image for comparisons

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center fix to leave trees behind[/size]

by Tony Lee ● Boston Metro ● August 21-23, 2009

PHOTOS BY NICOLAUS CZARNECKI/METRO

Metro Neighbors are upset the developers of the stalled Columbus Center project will not be replanting the trees that were torn down.

Residents abutting a portion of the much-maligned Columbus Center development are seeing the state clean up a strip filled with trash, jersey barriers and overgrown weeds.

But one question lingers: what about the trees?

Two years ago, in preparing the two-acre plot which separates Cortes Street from the Mass Pike for a proposed parking garage, developers of the stalled $624 million mixed-use project cut down 24 mature trees.

Never mind their aesthetic quality, the trees shielded Cortes residents from seven lanes of Mass Pike traffic and seven rail lines, blocking out noise and exhaust from trains, trucks and cars. With the garage delayed and the trees not part of the restoration plan, residents are concerned the landscape has permanently changed.

?My main concern, as an owner, is the value of this place,? said Stefanie Tam, who bought an apartment on Cortes just before the trees were ripped down. ?[The lack of trees] have had a huge impact on that.?

At least one resident is just happy something is happening to the land, trees or no trees. ?People need to realize that we?ve lived with this for 16 months,? said Cortes Street resident Lynn Andrews. ?For us it?s fantastic.?

The Turnpike Authority, after receiving complaints from neighbors, said it will pick up the tab for the $100,000, six-week restoration and seek reimbursement later from Columbus Center developers, but it has no plans to replant trees with the project still up in the air.

Developers were not available for comment but their inactivity speaks volumes to some.

?They shouldn?t have taken the trees down until they knew [how the project would play out],? said Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist who lives on nearby Clarendon Street.

Why not throw in for a few trees?

Gov. Deval Patrick?s administration may offer up to $30 million in financial support to help different developers begin a $450 million complex over the Mass Pike near Fenway Park, according to reports. The aid would help construction start on the 800,000 square foot Fenway Center as the Columbus Center project ? which was eyed hopefully as a catalyst in a construction boom over the Pike ? remains stalled.

http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/08/21/02/5034-72/index.xml

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

If I lived on Cortes Street I would be livid.

I would also remember that one copper nail driven into a tree will kill it. I would also remember that rich, old Arthur Winn probably has lots of beautiful trees in his yard. In my younger days, I might even be angry enough to juxtapose those two thoughts.

It's what Mick Jagger would call "rough justice on ya".

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

Mr Ned F is KILLING you here I am thinking so time for you to o advance to you REAR behind France style MAGNETO LINE!!!. (LOL) for drink at Aqwitane.

Meth is a powerful drug.

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

By itself, your above statement is irrelevant and misleading, because from 4 October 2001 through 4 February 2003, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association officially opposed the Columbus Center proposal.

Ned, I'm going to require some documentation illustrating the BVNA's opposition during those dates.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

And how sure of this are you? You sound more of a conspiracy theorist to make such an accustation. . .

The fact that accountants exist to reclassify profit to avoid taxes is not just an ?accustation? [sic] as you wrote._ Ask professional business accountants what they do all year long, and why they do it, and they?ll tell you that a primary goal is to ?adjust? the financial records so that the firms show no profit, pay as little tax as possible, and preferably no tax at all._ It is not uncommon for American businesses with millions or billions of revenue to pay no taxes._ It is unfair, and it is unethical, but it is common.

. . . But what would more likely provide a profit? A development with two years of construction, or a development that has yet to start? . . .

So long as you keep confusing profit earned by the Columbus Center developer with revenue collected by the state, you will never understand the very problem you?re trying to argue about._ You are incorrect in treating Columbus Center owner profit and Commonwealth rent revenue as one and the same, because these two factors are largely independent._ Columbus Center can earn huge profits for its owners, but so long as their accountants portray the venture as unprofitable, then no rent is owed._ No, that is not good for the state, or the toll-payers, or the taxpayers, but it is what was agreed to by the Turnpike Authority (the same people who ?forgot? to get a performance bond before work started).

As always, if you still do not understand this, if or you still do not believe it, then just re-read the parts of the lease that define the conditions under which rent is owed.

. . . Regardless of the "construction" cost and "development" cost, the total cost to develop an air right including construction of all parts is greater than that of a project over solid ground . . .

Listen to yourself!_ You wrote ?regardless of construction cost and regardless of development cost? yet those are the very two factors that settle the argument._ You can not intelligently continue this argument while at the same time disregarding the two factors that settle it._ These two costs ? construction cost and total development cost ? are different, and that very difference is what makes Columbus Center?s total development cost less in air than it would be on land.

I proved this over a year ago using public records, so I won?t repeat that proof here today._ If you still have doubt about how Columbus Center?s total development cost ended up less over air rights than it would have been on land, then you need to do only 2 simple things.

1. Learn the distinction between ?construction cost? vs. ?total development cost.?

2. Re-read my messages which explained how CC's TDC is less in air than on land:
#1278 on 21 August 2008
#1411 on 28 September 2008
#1435 on 29 September 2008
#1450 on 05 October 2008

. . . Read the news article which states the One Kenmore project as being cheaper than CC because more of it is built on land . . .

Firstly, no one knows what Fenway Center?s total development cost is, as both the developer and the government admitted in the article._ Secondly, the article does say that Fenway Center is estimated to cost less than Columbus Center, but that?s irrelevant to our discussion here, because you?ve again focused on the wrong data._ In any discussion about how Columbus Center?s total development cost got to be less in air than it would have been on land, comparing costs between different projects is irrelevant.

. . . the government has recognized that decking over the pike is more expensive than just building on land. You said they admitted it. Let me see the article.

No, the government hasn?t recognized anything of the sort._ Re-read the article, especially paragraph #11, which says: ?O?Connor said the Turnpike Authority does not yet know how much it will earn in lease payments, nor does it have a cost estimate for the deck.?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . ?from 4 October 2001 through 4 February 2003, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association officially opposed the Columbus Center proposal.? Ned, I'm going to require some documentation illustrating the BVNA's opposition during those dates.

It?s good that someone here finally asked about the ?Shared Neighborhood Vision?, which was a community-sponsored design created in opposition and in competition to the Columbus Center design.

4 October 2001 ? After reviewing the latest Winn proposal for over half a year, neighborhood associations from Bay Village, Back Bay, and South End issued a joint press release outlining their common understanding entitled the ?Shared Neighborhood Vision? based on the ?Civic Vision? (Turnpike Master Plan)._ The 4-page design guidelines reflected consensus recommendations for 7 key problem areas:_ height, density, corridor coverage, traffic, urban design, and parking._ The press release said that if Winn would not agree to develop per the Shared Neighborhood Vision, then the neighborhoods wanted the state properties to be re-bid in the open, competitive process required by the Turnpike Master Plan.

6 February 2003 ? The South End News reported on page 6: ?. . . once BVNA got theirs ? four five-story townhouses facing the neighborhood on Parcel 18, covering of the orphan parcel 19, little in way of commercial space ? they scattered, as the classic line from Monty Python?s Life of Brian goes, ?like rats out of the aqueduct!? leaving others to fight it out._ This is not the first time BVNA has been accused of playing fast and loose with allies._ Last year, they negotiated a deal with a hotel rather than standing and fighting with Chinatown residents.?

10 February 2003 ? The Boston Courant reported: ?The Shared Vision received a setback last Tuesday when the Bay Village Neighborhood Association (BVNA) decided to withdraw its endorsement of the proposal._ The neighborhood group voted to change its position, after seeing [Winn-controlled account Pam] McKinney?s economic analyses, according to a letter released to the press by BVNA President John Shope.?

Clarification ? In 2001, the Boston Redevelopment Authority hired a certified public accountant to evaluate the proposal for members of the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee, which consisted of 7 members in seats owned by the developer, but only 4 members democratically nominated from their communities.

Citizens eventually discovered that the accountant was selected by Winn Development, her work was paid in full by Winn, and she was under a legal gag order which forbade the disclosure of any information unless approved in advance by Winn._ The accountant was forbidden to even ?show her work,? as school teachers used to require of their arithmetic students.

So it was no surprise when the accountant?s numbers didn?t add up._ It also was no surprise when she declared that of the 5 proposals considered . . .

1. no-build
2. Winn preferred design
3. Turnpike Master Plan design
4. Shared Neighborhood Vision design
5. Enclosed Railway design

. . . the only viable proposal was #2 (the very same option that the developer wanted all along).

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

Waah, why can't NIMBYs band together to oppose a good project, waah

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

Firstly, no one knows what Fenway Center?s total development cost is, as both the developer and the government admitted in the article._ Secondly, the article does say that Fenway Center is estimated to cost less than Columbus Center, but that?s irrelevant to our discussion here, because you?ve again focused on the wrong data._ In any discussion about how Columbus Center?s total development cost got to be less in air than it would have been on land, comparing costs between different projects is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant just because you say it is. My discussion was that building on land is cheaper than building on just air right. There estimation is relevant because One Kenmore is on 50% land while CC is on 5% and that they estimated One Kenmore is more expensive than CC. I'm focusing on the date they have given which is what we are discussing.

No, the government hasn?t recognized anything of the sort._ Re-read the article, especially paragraph #11, which says: ?O?Connor said the Turnpike Authority does not yet know how much it will earn in lease payments, nor does it have a cost estimate for the deck.?

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.

They may not know the exact cost to build it but they do recognize that it cost more to build over the turnpike than on the ground.

 

[bbfen]

Re: Columbus Center

Some of the endorsers weren?t on the beneficiary list, but many of those were either employed by Columbus Center, or else people hoping to hop onto the development industry gravy train.

Any credibility you had with me was just flushed down the toilet with that one sentence.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center seesaw puts playground on hold[/size]

Boston Courant ? 21 August 2009

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Any credibility you had with me was just flushed down the toilet with that one sentence.

Don?t flush just yet; your conclusion lacks a rationale, so it is irrelevant.

? Perhaps you are disappointed that Columbus Center?s supporters wrote letters only after being offered inducements?
? Perhaps you are discouraged that other endorsers wrote while employed by or dependent upon the development team?
? Are you dismayed that people seeking work in development appeared during the pep rally?
? Are you frustrated that the mayor ignored each letter writer?s identity and affiliation, and merely tallied each piece of paper as a ?yes? or ?no? vote?
? Are you disgusted that unsigned, anonymous pieces of paper were treated as legitimate?
? Don?t you think it?s fraudulent to count the same letter more than once?

After missing hundreds of public meetings, did you care what the public comments were?

Did you pull the comment letters and review them yourself?

What did you see?