Well, you have to hand it to the folks at CresaPartners.

While most quarterly reports on the commercial real estate market are fairly tame, the ones Cresa churns are attention grabbers, to say the least.

Check out this prediction by the downtown firm, which specializes in advising corporations on their real estate needs.

“Many area landlords are on the doorstep of foreclosure,’’ reads a line from the firm’s latest report, arguing that as many as 50 percent of local office building owners are in such dire straits.

In a bit of somewhat self serving advice, Cresa is urging tenants to seize the day and lock in rent concessions now before their landlords go under. At that point, the bank will step in, take over the property, and jack the rents.

Before you dismiss this all as doomsday talk, I have two words for you: Hancock Tower.

After the foreclosure of the Hub’s iconic, showcase tower, really anything is possible.

And the fact is, while residential real estate may be looking somewhat better, the commercial market is still a wreck thanks to our ever increasing unemployment numbers.

So here’s to you, Cresa, for once again grabbing my attention.

Still, that 50 percent, that sounds a bit high to me.

After decades of trying to gouge developers interested in building air-rights projects over the Turnpike in Boston, state officials are finally changing their tune.

In a tantalizing bit of information, the Turnpike Authority, as it prepares to sail into oblivion, appears poised to sell developer John Rosenthal a key piece of land for a song.

Rosenthal, who has spent years pushing plans to build a giant parking, housing and retail and now transportation complex that would span the state highway near Fenway Park, faces the delicious prospect of picking up a key, state-owned parcel for just a few million.

The land, on which Rosenthal hopes to build part of his $450 million Fenway Center project, has been appraised at just $6 million, according to a recent State House News report.

But Rosenthal may not even have to pay that, with state officials reportedly looking for a “mix of land and cash,” the news service reports.

Sounds pretty sweet, but let’s not rush to judgment either.

It comes on the heels of the Patrick Administration’s decision to chip in as much as $65 million toward the cost of building the Turnpike deck over which portions of the project will be built.

That’s quite a shift from years past, when Turnpike officials haggled for years with developers over various air-rights proposals, pushing for sky-high payments and lucrative lease deals.

The result was nothing got built and the state and taxpayers lost out on millions in potential income.

The poster child for this failed approach, of course, is the long-planned $800 million Columbus Center project. Designed to bridge over the ugly Turnpike canyon between the Back Bay and South End, it collapsed shortly after initial site work had begun.

Well, things are certainly bad enough for that.

But whether Congress and the country have the political will to dole out hundreds of billions more for another set of perceived fat-cats, this time rich office tower owners, is another question altogether.

If it’s just on the merits of the case, commercial real estate wins this rather grim contest hands down.

There’s certainly enough to worry about with the battered home sales market.

But incredibly, the tottering commercial real estate sector is starting to look even worse.

How bad is it? Well the Fed has identified commercial real estate as one of the weakest links in the economy, Bloomberg reports.

Given the competition out there among various ailing segments of the economy, that’s not good.

Here’s one stunning stat from that article: Defaults on commercial real estate loans have hit $110 billion, 11 times what they were three years ago. By the end of next year, that number is expected to jump to $170 billion.

That’s enough to buy you 300 Hancock towers at today’s prices.

Sounds like a pretty big tidal wave of bad debt, headed straight towards all those banks we just saved from the collapse of the residential market.

But not everyone sees things that way.

“This looks like a manageable problem for the banking industry. I don’t think it threatens the banking industry as a whole,’ Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker told reporters during a media question and answer session, Reuters reports.

That would seem to throw a pretty wet blanket on hopes for a commercial real estate bailout.

Still, the Obama Administration may be thinking differently, with a recent report that the president was recently briefed on the precarious state of the commercial real estate market.

Stay tuned.

So the Sage family, after years of talks with just about every developer in town, has finally reeled in a big one.

Robert Sage, the family patriarch and long-time local hotelier, has struck a deal with a pair of powerhouse Boston developers to replace his aging Howard Johnson next door to Fenway Park with a big new hotel and condo project. Weiner Ventures helped build the Mandarin Oriental, while Samuels & Associates has built a pair of high-rise residential and commercial buildings that have helped transform the neighborhood around Fenway Park itself.

But the deal also raises a whole bunch of questions, including how tall the new, 275 room Hilton will be. Especially since, get this, it will also include 100 condos or apartments as well. (The Herald dug out these crucial details.) No trivial issue, a new, high-rise hotel would likely loom over Fenway Park, potentially triggering a conflict with the Red Sox.

Now I may be missing something, but if you are going to replace a 94 room hotel with one that’s 275 rooms, with 100 condos thrown in for good measure, there’s likely just one place to go – up.

After all, views sell condos and no one is going to spend big money to look out on sausage stands and hordes of baseball fans.

Janet Marie Smith, the ballpark architectural guru who masterminded the revamp of the 1912 stadium, had lobbied hard to keep new, high-rise projects from encroaching on Fenway Park.

Smith, with the apparent backing of the Sox ownership group, had argued such encroachment would rob Fenway of a key part of its charm – its broad view of the city’s skyline.

There were also fears of hotel and condo developers building so close and so tall that they would steal views into the park. You can imagine the sales pitch – “check out Fenway view room, where you relax and watch the game from your room!”

Alas, Janet is gone, not entirely under happy circumstances, though she’s landed safely as the Baltimore Orioles new ballpark czar.

Maybe, post Janet Marie Smith, John Henry’s Red Sox ownership group no longer cares about such things.

But whether they are as worked up these days about such architectural niceties, Henry and co-owner Tom Werner can’t be entirely happy how this deal came down.

As I mentioned before, the Sages have had talks with a lot of different developers over the years.

And I recall the last “plan” to redevelop the tired HoJo’s was with none other than the Red Sox.

Boston area developers already have their hands full desperately trying to keep projects on track amid the worst recession in generations.

Still, the one silver lining to the downturn has been a dramatic, 30 percent drop in construction prices. That could be just enough to push some projects into construction.

But wait, because even as construction costs go down, state officials and environmental activists are heaping on an array of tough new green building regs.

And developers brave enough to push ahead in this market may soon find their plans entangled in all sorts of costly green tape.

The latest darling of the Bay State’s save-the-earth-by-killing-all-our-jobs crowd is a new, “stretch’’ energy code passed by the Legislature this spring.

It allows local cities and towns to pass more stringent green building codes than the tough tones the state already requires.

And it could push up the cost of building a new home, never cheap around here, by another $8,000.

Kind of like the first-time buyer tax credit, in reverse.

All eyes are now on Cambridge which – big surprise – could become the first city in the state to up the ante here.

And it may be just a preview of what may soon be coming out the green-crazy Patrick Administration.

Later this fall, state environmental officials will roll out long-awaited regulations calling for expensive new stormwater runoff systems. The aim, to keep dirty water from running off the pavement into local waterways, is noble, but it could cost billions, warns NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents local developers.

The group fears the new rules will require the new systems anytime a hospital expands a parking lot or a developer puts up a new condo complex, no matter whether the Charles River is 100 feet or 100 miles away.

We’ll see, but it doesn’t look good.

A veteran commercial real estate reporter/writer, I learned that lesson anew this past week.

In an earlier blog, I wrote of how City Hall had rolled out a tough new policy requiring developers to prove they have a viable financing plan before they would be allowed to break ground on new projects.

The rules, as I noted, come in response to the Filene’s fiasco, which a gaping hole in the middle of Downtown Crossing.

Well, the new policy, if it can really be called that now, is not so clear and tough as it turns out.

The new “protocol’’ turns out to be a nebulous, verbal directive by John Palmieri, the new director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, to his staff.

I only discovered this after requesting a written copy of the new rules, only to be told there was none – not even an email.

Generally, developers will have to sit down and talk about their financing prospects – and demonstrate they have a realistic plan and prospects – before they get the go ahead.

After that, a spokeswoman for the development authority struggled to explain what, if any, standards developers will be asked to meet, whether it’s letter of intents or equity pledged.

That sounds like a good idea, but given the complexity of development financing, that is dangerously ambiguous.

As I note in my weekly column for B&T, this leaves the door open for at least the potential of different standards being applied to different developers.

I know the response in advance – of course not, we don’t do things that way, every builder who comes through the BRA is treated in the same fair fashion.

But in a city where there is a perception that some developers have more of an inside track than others, this is dangerous territory.

It’s hard to think of anyone who has been hammered harder by the recession than architects.

The unemployment rate in the field is something like 40 percent – a number that holds true for the Boston area as well, Tom Keane, head of the Boston Society of Architects, tells me.

Instead of complaining about the field’s woes, the American Institute of Architects has rolled out a wide-ranging plan to boost business – and hiring – in a range of fields.

Of course, as businesses expand again, they will need new buildings, hence the bonus for architects.

But don’t mischaracterize this as some sort of bailout for the I.M. Peis of the world.

Rather, the professional organization, which represents architects across the country, should be lauded for a fairly broad – and inclusive –recovery plan.

Mickey Jabob, a Florida architect and owner of a small design firm, recently unveiled the AIA’s recovery plan at a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business.

He noted his own firm, which had done a fair amount of residential work during the boom, has dropped from $300,000 a month to just $30,000.

Jacob and the AIA are urging Congress to pump stimulus money into the until now neglected small business sector. All told, 80 percent of the AIA’s 85,000 members work at firms that are considered small businesses.

Some highlights:

· Making financing available for design and construction projects, especially smaller retrofits.

· Extend the first-time home buyer tax credit

· Clear up confusion in the tax code that have been detrimental to architects and engineers, while cutting paperwork needed to take advantage of government stimulus programs.

· Hire design and construction professionals to help oversee government stimulus projects.

Mortimer Zuckerman is best known around here as chairman of our hometown real estate giant, Boston Properties.

But as owner of the New York Daily News, he is also a media mogul.

And, judging from recent reports, a media mogul with a big appetite.

Zuckerman was recently approached by Goldman Sachs, which tried to interest him in making a bid for The Boston Globe, the Financial Times has reported.

Not a bad addition for the man who already owns a big piece of downtown Boston.

Meanwhile, Zuckerman is also battling it out with Bloomberg in a bidding war from BusinessWeek magazine.

That comes on top of his recent move, which I wrote about year, to cash in some of his Boston Properties stock and spend millions on new printing presses for his New York tabloid.

All these moves should prove inspiring to the ink stained wretches like me who have spent their careers toiling for traditional media outlets.

A man who has made a fortune and is willing to pump all sorts of crazy cash back into print – Mr. Zuckerman, you have my vote.

Supporters of expanded gambling, who just days ago appeared poised to win a major legislative victory, should be worried right now.

After all, opponents of casino gambling are rejoicing, for House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s decision to push off a vote until next year gives them some valuable time to work with.

Undaunted, the powers that be insist all is well, and that casino gambling will be coming to Massachusetts after all – it will just take a little longer than first thought.

Now we are looking at a bill in January and a vote most likely in the spring, I’m told.

Despite the fact that all three of the state’s top leaders are lined up on this issue in support – Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo – I am not so easily assured.

It’s one thing to be supportive of the idea of expanded gambling as a revenue generator and job creator.

But it’s an entirely different matter to hammer out all the complicated regulatory and tax issues involved with legalizing casinos.

DeLeo, in comments made after the surprise decision to delay a vote, seemed to indicate as much.

The House leader and his colleagues say they just need more time to work it all out.

Somehow I am not reassured by that.

Frankly, Beacon Hill has a spotty record to say the least when it comes to hammering out complex, high-profile, and politically contentious legislation, as a casino bill surely will be.

Health care legislation is even more complex, but the details make most people’s eyes glaze over.

But with gambling, lots of key details, such as whether to charge $200 million or $500 million for licensing fees, will both attract a fair amount of headlines and political controversy.

I liken it to the disastrous debate on Beacon Hill back in 2000 over the Red Sox proposal to tear down Fenway Park and build a new stadium next door.

It was a plan that needed a hefty dose of state aid. But given it involved the Red Sox and Fenway Park, otherwise mundane details, such as who would pay for a parking garage, became front-page stories.

I know, having spent months of 12 hour days and longer dogging the story for the Boston Herald.

The hype around the proposal and its details only served to bog the thing down. A bill eventually got passed that summer, with the clock running out on the legislative session.

By that point, the economy had begun to go south and the Sox, after making concession to get the thing passed, found it was unworkable.

There was a happy ending, though, with John Harrington a few months later putting the team up for sale. He went, Fenway stayed, and the then hapless Sox got new owners and a new lease on life.

I guess thinking it over, if I was a casino opponent, I would cheer on this effort to get every detail right.

Ever wonder what happened to all that tough talk out of City Hall last fall about grilling developers on financing?

Recall the dark days of last October, with the stock market in free fall and the global financial system in meltdown mode.

His financial backers having fled in a panic, veteran developer John Hynes was forced to halt in mid-stream demolition work aimed at clearing the way for his most ambitious plan yet: Redeveloping the city’s landmark Filene’s complex.

Hynes’ plans had called for renovating the turn-of-the century department store and grafting a soaring office and condo tower onto the side of it.

Instead, he was forced to stop work abruptly, leaving a bombed out looking block that looked like something out of blitzed out London in 1940.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino soon after called for tough new city regs that would require developers to demonstrate they had their financing in place before tearing anything down.

Then, as the global financial crisis deepened and construction on projects halted across the country, the proposal at least appeared to quietly – and mercifully - fade away.

Well, not quite.

John Palmieri, the director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said a decision was made not to revamp the city’s regulations related to reviewing major development projects.

Instead, he’s simply issued an order from his office requiring a sit-down and intensive briefing from developers on the status of their financing efforts before they are allowed to move forward.

The new policy has been in place for a couple months, and there have already been some meetings as a result, he indicated.

Hopefully, the new rules won’t work against the very thing they are trying to prevent, though.

Most developers will tell you it’s pretty hard to nail down financing until there is a go-ahead on the permitting from City Hall.

As long as a little common sense is applied, it sounds like such reviews can’t hurt.

As for the travails of Hynes, the would-be redeveloper of the Filene’s block, City Hall is now taking a more conciliatory stance.

Hynes appeared to be unfairly targeted last fall by the new financing rules.

But the reaction did not take into account the fact that the problem was not with the developer’s plans or a case of sketchy financial backing, but with a global economy that went off the cliff.

Palmieri now seems to acknowledge as much, noting that Hynes, when city officials gave him a green light to tear down part of the Filene’s complex to make way for a new tower, had a solid financial package backing his plans.

“In any city of the country he would have been approved,’’ Palmieri said. “He ran into an economy that fell off a cliff.’’