Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
No, your argument is not ?building on land? versus ?building on just air right? [sic]._ Your argument has always been that you refuse to believe that Columbus Center?s TDC (Total Development Cost) is less in the air than it would be on the ground._ You?ve offered no proof, only your insistence and your belief.
Every single time you resume this argument, you ignore the meaning of TDC._ You are doing that again by substituting ?building? for TDC.
The facts and figures in the public records already proved that CC?s TDC is less in air than it would be on land._ Those facts and figures were posted in this forum.
You switch to new vocabulary every time you want to re-start the same old argument, but you?re not fooling anybody (except perhaps yourself).
When comparing CC?s air-based-TDC vs. its land-based-TDC, it is irrelevant to consider other projects at other locations._ Doing that just introduces irrelevant factors that obscure the answer.
Firstly, One Kenmore no longer exists._ Over one year ago, the original One Kenmore proposal was re-proposed as Fenway Center._ Re-read both proposals, because it was far more than just a name change.
Secondly, you can not intelligently argue that ?Fenway is more expensive than Columbus? as you wrote._ Fenway?s gross square footage is 800,000 square feet, but Columbus? is 1,526,700._ Fenway?s most recent estimate is $450 million (Boston Globe, 20 August 2009) but Columbus? is $850 million (Boston Herald, 11 July 2009). Size and cost are about half at Fenway of what they are at Columbus.
Thirdly, one project costing more than a different project is irrelevant, because comparing land-based percentages from different sites doesn?t prove anything about the original argument that you resurrect every few months:_ how CC?s TDC is less in air than on land._ That argument requires comparing the same project, to itself, in air versus on land._ In the context of that argument, comparing different projects, sizes, and locations is meaningless.
No, we are not discussing dates._ Dates are irrelevant to the original question of how CC?s TDC is less in air than on land.
Untrue, at both sites._ At Columbus, I already posted the arithmetic that proved CC?s TDC is less in air than on land._ At Fenway, no one knows the TDC yet, so trying to move this argument to that site is pointless, because the cost data needed to resolve it won?t be available for a few more years.
You should decide exactly what it is that you want to argue, and on what bases, before you post any further._ And if you do try to start this argument again, post your proof, with supporting arithmetic and applicable logic, and show your work.
So far, the only thing you have proven is that you do not know what TDC is, or what it includes, or how to compare it, or what the public records show as the Columbus TDC.
No, your argument is not ?building on land? versus ?building on just air right? [sic]._ Your argument has always been that you refuse to believe that Columbus Center?s TDC (Total Development Cost) is less in the air than it would be on the ground._ You?ve offered no proof, only your insistence and your belief.
Every single time you resume this argument, you ignore the meaning of TDC._ You are doing that again by substituting ?building? for TDC.
The facts and figures in the public records already proved that CC?s TDC is less in air than it would be on land._ Those facts and figures were posted in this forum.
You switch to new vocabulary every time you want to re-start the same old argument, but you?re not fooling anybody (except perhaps yourself).
When comparing CC?s air-based-TDC vs. its land-based-TDC, it is irrelevant to consider other projects at other locations._ Doing that just introduces irrelevant factors that obscure the answer.
Firstly, One Kenmore no longer exists._ Over one year ago, the original One Kenmore proposal was re-proposed as Fenway Center._ Re-read both proposals, because it was far more than just a name change.
Secondly, you can not intelligently argue that ?Fenway is more expensive than Columbus? as you wrote._ Fenway?s gross square footage is 800,000 square feet, but Columbus? is 1,526,700._ Fenway?s most recent estimate is $450 million (Boston Globe, 20 August 2009) but Columbus? is $850 million (Boston Herald, 11 July 2009). Size and cost are about half at Fenway of what they are at Columbus.
Thirdly, one project costing more than a different project is irrelevant, because comparing land-based percentages from different sites doesn?t prove anything about the original argument that you resurrect every few months:_ how CC?s TDC is less in air than on land._ That argument requires comparing the same project, to itself, in air versus on land._ In the context of that argument, comparing different projects, sizes, and locations is meaningless.
No, we are not discussing dates._ Dates are irrelevant to the original question of how CC?s TDC is less in air than on land.
Untrue, at both sites._ At Columbus, I already posted the arithmetic that proved CC?s TDC is less in air than on land._ At Fenway, no one knows the TDC yet, so trying to move this argument to that site is pointless, because the cost data needed to resolve it won?t be available for a few more years.
You should decide exactly what it is that you want to argue, and on what bases, before you post any further._ And if you do try to start this argument again, post your proof, with supporting arithmetic and applicable logic, and show your work.
So far, the only thing you have proven is that you do not know what TDC is, or what it includes, or how to compare it, or what the public records show as the Columbus TDC.
