Intercontinental Hotel

[bbfen]

I'm not being personal here, I'm actually fairly disinterested in this crusade (maybe I shouldn't be, since I live within spitting distance of the masspike). But this is what I got from your post. Spun differently:

You want something that doesn't exist be installed, and it doesn't matter if there's pollution in a lower-density (read:lower income) area because more people in higher density neighborhood will have cleaner air? I mean, that's simplifies it, but that's it.

I admire what I think is your end goal----cleaner air----but the message is diluted by your tactics, rhetoric and zealotry.

Ned, I regretted this post all day. I think I came off a bit personal here and I apologize. You're not an elected official, you're one guy trying to bring light to an issue you think's important to the public health.

I just encourage you, in whatever way you can, to self-moderate and self-edit, because I sit in the same meetings as you do. I sometimes see the resigned sighs and rolled eyes, and this is one forum (literally) where I can reach out.

So: in 20 years, we may all look back and say, "Golly, he was right!" I think you'll get farther building bridges than being verbosely combative is all I'm trying to say.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . this is what I got from your post . . . You want something that doesn't exist be installed . . .

If you say it?s what you got, then perhaps it?s what you got._ But it?s not what I said.

Technologies that can cleanse tunnel air already exist._ Applying those technologies to a tunnel requires custom design, custom specification, and custom construction, because there is not yet any model available for copying._ The technology exists; it?s the model for adapting it that doesn?t.

. . . lower-density (read:lower income) . . .

It?s not always true that lower density = lower income._ For example, the 64 households in Mount Washington, Massachusetts have a per capita income of $50,149, whereas the 8,289 households in Burlington, Massachusetts have a per capita income of $30,732.

. . . this is what I got from your post . . . it doesn't matter if there's pollution in a lower-density . . . area because more people in higher density neighborhood will have cleaner air . . .

It may be what you got._ It?s not what I said.

Stellarfun thinks that eliminating pollution might cost more than enduring it, so I pointed out that the human cost of pollution rises as the number of people exposed rises, and thus the savings from protecting large numbers of people can justify the cost of added power generation.

You ask whether adding pollution to a low-population area ?doesn?t matter? if it reduces pollution in a high-population area._ The public health costs in a low-population area are lower than in a high-population area, because fewer people incur them._ So, once again, Stellarfun?s theory fails, because he ignored the fact that the added power generation costs can be outweighed by the savings in public health costs.

So long as society insists on polluting, then polluting in lower population areas is better than in higher population areas._ That?s not to say that it ?doesn?t matter? at all, only that it?s less harmful._ Ultimately, all added pollution matters in some way or other, because humans? polluting activities are outpacing the earth?s ability to heal herself.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

. . . you'll get farther building bridges than being verbosely combative is all I'm trying to say. . .

I agree wholeheartedly._ A forum works best when it?s the ideas that are on trial, not the speakers, so I try to just state my research findings, without personal emotion, and hope others will just discuss the facts._ But three characteristics of this forum make that a challenge.

Some members complain that they need more information from me, while others want only little bits at a time, which leaves most posts a disappointment to both groups.

Then other members complain that my messages are too factual, and not emotional enough.

And when I posted facts that others disliked, instead of challenging or discussing those facts, they attacked me personally, casting aspersions about my age, experience, education, employment, hobbies, work schedule, sleep habits, number of friends, marital status, sexual orientation, home address, number of windows, whether my neighborhood association filed meeting minutes with the Secretary of State over the last 14 years, and plenty more.

In any forum about the built environment, name-calling, obscenities, suggestions to make prank calls, and death wishes all betray a juvenile imbecility that can be hard to ignore.

Like this one: ?So why don?t you stage a camp out on the trench to save it since you love the view so much? Or better yet, jump off a bridge over the Pike and get run over.? (Barbaric Manchurian, Columbus Center thread post #236, 26 August 2007)

Or this one from a forum moderator: ?this guy Ned deserves having a stake driven through his heart, if only for being a huge dick.? (VanShnookenraggen, New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center thread post #301, 17 March 2009)

Sorry if this reply is more longer than either of us would like, but I hope your advice about not being verbosely combative extends equally to all forum members.

 

[stellarfun]

If you say it?s what you got, then perhaps it?s what you got._ But it?s not what I said.

Technologies that can cleanse tunnel air already exist._ Applying those technologies to a tunnel requires custom design, custom specification, and custom construction, because there is not yet any model available for copying._ The technology exists; it?s the model for adapting it that doesn?t.



It?s not always true that lower density = lower income._ For example, the 64 households in Mount Washington, Massachusetts have a per capita income of $50,149, whereas the 8,289 households in Burlington, Massachusetts have a per capita income of $30,732.



It may be what you got._ It?s not what I said.

Stellarfun thinks that eliminating pollution might cost more than enduring it, so I pointed out that the human cost of pollution rises as the number of people exposed rises, and thus the savings from protecting large numbers of people can justify the cost of added power generation.

You ask whether adding pollution to a low-population area ?doesn?t matter? if it reduces pollution in a high-population area._ The public health costs in a low-population area are lower than in a high-population area, because fewer people incur them._ So, once again, Stellarfun?s theory fails, because he ignored the fact that the added power generation costs can be outweighed by the savings in public health costs.

So long as society insists on polluting, then polluting in lower population areas is better than in higher population areas._ That?s not to say that it ?doesn?t matter? at all, only that it?s less harmful._ Ultimately, all added pollution matters in some way or other, because humans? polluting activities are outpacing the earth?s ability to heal herself.

Somewhere in the bowels of the Columbus Center thread, I posted a rough calculation of the volume of air one would need to scrub to rid the air of most of the ultrafine particles. And IIRC, I ventured that the scrubber would be taller and larger than any of the Columbus Center buildings themselves.

Scrubbers, whether wet or dry, are designed to operate in a closed system. The pollutants in the air stream are confined, and there is an efficiency and efficacy that results from scrubbing a limited volume of air. Not so with any tunnel vent. Tunnel vent systems draw in enormous amounts of ambient air to replace the air being vented out.

Back in the Columbus Center thread, I also posted pictures of a scrubber used to reduce pollutants from diesel locomotives. The exhaust pipes for a diesel engine are positioned under a hood, which captures the diesel exhaust and scrubs it. The state of California neither requires nor does the railroad utilize a system that would scrub the ambient air, full of diesel exhaust, in the rail yard. If you go to fire stations, you may notice flexible tubing hanging down that is used to capture and vent diesel exhaust in the fire house. Similar principle to what is used in the rail yard.

In the Columbus Center thread, you repeatedly called for the air to be scrubbed. IIRC, you even claimed in one post that you had spoken to 'experts' who said it could be done, and was already being done (giving no examples, again IIRC). Now you concede that while the technology may exist -- no one disputes that -- it has yet to be applied in a way that you once demanded the developers of Columbus Center to employ, and the Commonwealth to require.

The cost benefit test that I used did not mix apples and oranges like you are now doing by bringing in public health costs. I simply posited that the added pollution from electric power generation required to operate the massive scrubbers needed to scrub ambient air would exceed the amount of pollutants removed by the scrubbers. That's how inefficient your proposal is.

As for public health risks associated with living near a busy rail line and a major highway, perhaps the Love Canal solution is an optiion to be considered. Too expensive to abate the pollution from the Love Canal site, the government bought out the homeowners and moved them away. (I might add a similar approach was used in Salem. Homeowners living near a new sewage treatment plant complained of the odor. The sewage treatment district said, 'okay, we'll buy your house and you can move.' The district bought the houses, and tore them down. Didnt buy the houses that abutted the backyard, and they're still there, and little odor these days too.)

 

[Patriots_1228]

I must say I agree with bbfan and Ned that people are too quick to pull out the insults on Ned.

Its one thing in that Columbus Center thread, which is really such a mess im surprised people aren't spamming it with porn or sending out death threats, but its another thing when Ned takes a rare step outside that thread and posts somewhere else and immediately gets jumped on.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

I agree wholeheartedly._ A forum works best when it’s the ideas that are on trial, not the speakers, so I try to just state my research findings, without personal emotion, and hope others will just discuss the facts._ But three characteristics of this forum make that a challenge.

Some members complain that they need more information from me, while others want only little bits at a time, which leaves most posts a disappointment to both groups.

Then other members complain that my messages are too factual, and not emotional enough.

And when I posted facts that others disliked, instead of challenging or discussing those facts, they attacked me personally, casting aspersions about my age, experience, education, employment, hobbies, work schedule, sleep habits, number of friends, marital status, sexual orientation, home address, number of windows, whether my neighborhood association filed meeting minutes with the Secretary of State over the last 14 years, and plenty more.

In any forum about the built environment, name-calling, obscenities, suggestions to make prank calls, and death wishes all betray a juvenile imbecility that can be hard to ignore.

Like this one: “So why don’t you stage a camp out on the trench to save it since you love the view so much? Or better yet, jump off a bridge over the Pike and get run over.” (Barbaric Manchurian, Columbus Center thread post #236, 26 August 2007)

Or this one from a forum moderator: “this guy Ned deserves having a stake driven through his heart, if only for being a huge dick.” (VanShnookenraggen, New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center thread post #301, 17 March 2009)

Sorry if this reply is more longer than either of us would like, but I hope your advice about not being verbosely combative extends equally to all forum members.

You have a long memory, but I truly apologize for that comment. Sorry.

 

[crash575]

stellarfun is completely right about scrubbing the volume of air exchanged in a highway. While it 'might' be possible the cost of doing so would be enormous.

In college while study environmental economics we often discussed issues like this. Even if this highway scrubber existed the benefits don't outweigh the costs. It's cheaper and more far more efficient to regulate the cars emissions. eg CAFE standards, changing the fuel, or going electric and increasing pollution control at power plants. Keeping things the way they are and attempting to apply scrubber technology to a completely different, open, system will never work.

point source vs. non-point source pollution

 

[Boston02124]

Calling Ned! Come in please! (He probably knows.)

Geez I thought this thread was almost dead,then I posted a couple of pix's and Kennedy asked a question and then this thread turned into Columbus Center part 2 lol! at any rate I just like to post my pix's!

 

[kennedy]

Funny thing is, I asked that question months ago...

Oh, and great picture!

 

[TikiNYC]

I actually think that Boston is getting some great hotels, but Im not sure what to make of this design, not being an architecture expert.

Heck, I feel like with all this architecture, I should start a Boston group on the Sleep New York Forums where I am admin. I will definately put a link in the architecture/New York Icons sub forum there.

 

[palindrome]

From BBJ:

The InterContinental Boston, burdened by a near $200 million debt load, is performing ?significantly below expectations? and is expected to default on a sizable mezzanine loan in the near term, according recent financial filings.

 

[stellarfun]

From BBJ:

IIRC, there was mention some time last year that they were trying to sell off the underground garage.

 

[TheRifleman]

I really like the design to this development but I feel that they never had a good plan to activate the ground floor towards Greenway.

 

[JohnAKeith]

So, the InterContinental Hotel says it can't fill its rooms. Meanwhile, the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, maybe .75 miles away, wants to build another hotel.

A match made in heaven!

 

[HenryAlan]

I really like the design to this development but I feel that they never had a good plan to activate the ground floor towards Greenway.

It is a bit too fortress-like. Once you get inside, it's quite nice, and the canal side is really pretty cool.

 

[TheRifleman]

InterContinental Hotel expected to default on mezzanine loan
Boston Business Journal - by Craig M. Douglas
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 1:52pm EST - Last Modified: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 2:43pm EST


Craig M. Douglas
Real Estate Editor
Email: cdouglas@bizjournals.com

The InterContinental Boston, burdened by a near $200 million debt load, is performing ?significantly below expectations? and is expected to default on a sizable mezzanine loan in the near term, according recent financial filings.

On Feb. 11, Fitch Ratings downgraded three classes of Newcastle CDO VIII, a collateralized debt pool that includes an $18.5 million mezzanine loan secured by the InterContinental. The hotel?s loan, which totaled $45 million at issuance in 2006, is subordinate to another $175 million mortgage balance extended that same year by a unit of Deutsche Bank, according to servicer and regulatory filings.

According to Fitch, the NewCastle CDO contains only one mezzanine loan, and it is backed by a 424-room full service hotel in Boston. The ratings firm did not identify the hotel in question. However, the same NewCastle CDO also received multiple downgrades in a recent Moody?s Investors Service report. A Moody?s spokesman confirmed this week that the portfolio?s sole mezzanine loan is in fact the $18.5 million balance secured by the InterContinental.

In Fitch?s report, the ratings firm said the hotel has performed below expectations since the loan was issued. In reference to the $18.5 million mezzanine loan, Fitch said it modeled a term default and full loss for investors in the Newcastle CDO.

Gary Barnett, the chief executive and founder of Extell Development Co., the InterContinental?s New York-based owner, said the mezzanine loan ?is performing and paying interest.? Asked to comment on the hotel?s performance and Fitch?s analysis, Barnett said, ?I have no reaction to that. They can write what they want. ...I think the hotel is a beautiful hotel.

?As to its financial expectations ... I think the hotel industry?s come through a rough patch and I?m confident things will continue to get better.?

In a phone interview Thursday, Tim Kirwan, the InterContinental?s general manager, said the hotel was performing well and was unaffected by the issues surrounding its mezzanine debt. He described the hotel as "the flagship" in the InterContinental chain, adding that "from an operating standpoint, we're not unhappy at all." Kirwan conceded that the InterContinental Boston has performed below expections laid out during its development but said it has performed well in the interim, despite the economy's troubles. The hotel opened in 2006.

The InterContinental?s challenges, as well as those at other luxury hotels throughout Greater Boston, have been well documented since the economy?s troubles took root in late 2007. In a November 2009 interview with the Boston Business Journal, Kirwan said rates were off 10 percent on a year-over-year basis, adding that parts of the year were ?dismal.? It is unclear whether things rebounded in 2010, although Kirwan said at the time that significant improvement was unlikely. In general, hotel billings and occupancy rates fell throughout Greater Boston for most of 2010.



Read more: InterContinental Hotel expected to default on mezzanine loan | Boston Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2011/02/intercontinental-hotel-expected-to.html

 

[stellarfun]

Rifleman, the link to that article was posted on February 16. (See post #91.) You are a week late.