Rose Kennedy Greenway

[GW2500]

^^ Fair enough, but I'd say it would help reach the critical mass of people required to make it more active.

 

[statler]

Single-handedly? No. Would it be a start? A step in the right direction? Better than what is there now?

Not that I loved Chiofaro's proposal but but still think the answer is 'probably yes'. And with some design tweaks it could be a resounding yes.

 

[TheRifleman]

Mmmmkay....let me phrase my question more pointedly to Rifleman's specious assertion:

How would the development of the Harbor Garage (and Congress St Garage) be transformative to the Greenway and turn it into all the things noted above? I don't understand how, when the Greenway runs alongside a downtown that already has about 40 million SF of towers in it, another one or two towers will have any material benefit with respect to the activation of the parks. Someone please explain how this will be the case. Because that appears to be the basic, underlying assertion being made by Chiofaro - that his project will somehow single-handedly save the Greenway and "activate" it. I'm not buying it. That's all.

The Greenway is fucking disaster. It's terrible........The Kennedy's might pull Rose's name from it, if nothing is actually done with it in the future. Welcome to Rose Kennedy Median Strip.....announcement from the Duck Tours.

Right now the way I see it. It's not a park at all. If anything people just walk through it to get to a location. It's like a nice median strip and it is much better than the elevated highway. Some of the parcels have potential. Chiofaro's parcel without a doubt would make a significant impact to the Greenway. His development is key to making the Greenway more usable. Now the question you really have to ask yourself.......Will he save the Greenway? I have more faith in this guy than the city officials.

Harbor Garage probably will have more influence on the Greenway than Congress St. But still Congress St. would also set a nice starting point to a beautiful path. Gotta have vision that is what a developer is all about.

 

[KentXie]

Mmmmkay....let me phrase my question more pointedly to Rifleman's specious assertion:

How would the development of the Harbor Garage (and Congress St Garage) be transformative to the Greenway and turn it into all the things noted above? I don't understand how, when the Greenway runs alongside a downtown that already has about 40 million SF of towers in it, another one or two towers will have any material benefit with respect to the activation of the parks. Someone please explain how this will be the case. Because that appears to be the basic, underlying assertion being made by Chiofaro - that his project will somehow single-handedly save the Greenway and "activate" it. I'm not buying it. That's all.

Here's my point of view. As I see it now, the Greenway, which I initially praised when they first planned it with other structures such as the YMCA, the Boston Museum, and other promises, is merely a scar left behind by the wound that was the Central Artery. Since all the promises failed to come into fruition, and thus failed to knit the urban fabric back, constructing along the side brings urbanity back. Also, the construction of two new towers will bring more people into the area, and thus makes the parks more efficient with more utilization. But no he will not single-handedly save the string of parks. But like statler said, it is the first step.

 

[TheRifleman]

That's quite a high standard: better than a rusty highway overpass. Bravo!


In short, the Greenway represents a perfect storm of incompetent urban planning, irrational, amateurish landscape design, and cheap or climatically inappropriate finishes, all served up with a steaming side of political pandering to obstructionist activists. It's a failure of the first order, from its unfocused design to bloated administration. Celebrating the Greenway only amplifies its mediocrity.

^^^Classic

 

[type001]

I don't understand how, when the Greenway runs alongside a downtown that already has about 40 million SF of towers in it, another one or two towers will have any material benefit with respect to the activation of the parks.

Um, isn't this the exact argument that everyone else on here uses against you?

 

[Beton Brut]

"Truth is just...truth. You can't have opinions about truth."

-Peter Schickele

 

[greenwayguy1982]

^^
type001, what do you mean? Everyone else on here sees to think that one tower on the Harbor Garage site is the magic bullet that will magically "activate the Greenway" just like Chiofaro's propaganda claims. I seem to be the only one saying otherwise, that one more building amidst a sea of buildings isn't going to somehow magically jam the Greenway with people all the time. Just use IP as an example. How "active" are the parcels around IP on a nice day? What kind of "active" frontage does IP provide?

 

[Beton Brut]

Everyone else on here sees to think that one tower on the Harbor Garage site is the magic bullet that will magically "activate the Greenway..."

That's certainly not what I said...Not even close...

How "active" are the parcels around IP on a nice day? What kind of "active" frontage does IP provide?

That question is intellectually dishonest. International Place was built hard-fast against a highway ramp; a ramp serving the same function now emerges from underground in the same general area. How would you improve the buildings' street presence facing the Greenway, given the obvious limitations?

 

[DZH22]

There is not 1 "magic bullet" to saving the greenway. It needs a series of "magic bullets", but replacing the garage with a couple large mixed-use towers could bring both more residents and more workers into the area, and thus be like a "magic cannonball" to get the ball rolling. You're right about all the towers on the other side of the greenway, but what reason does anyone actually have to CROSS and, thus, USE the greenway now? The more things that are built on the harbor side, the more reasons people will have to go back and forth.

Also, they should really build a few shorter buildings on the greenway parcels that have the on-ramps into the tunnel. These are not "parks" anyways. Who the hell hangs out on a patch of grass with an on-ramp running through it? This is especially true of the parcels near North Station. A few smaller buildings to basically cover the ramps (with the tunnel cut through them) would help knit the city back together about 100 times better than those current parcels. KentXie is absolutely right in calling it a scar on downtown. If we had a series of parks (similar to Post Office Square) and built on the rest, it would finally integrate the area back into the city.

Oh and Greenwayguy, you always talk about the success of Rowes Wharf? Well, first of all, I'm pretty sure it lost money, and second of all, I have walked to it a few times, and beyond the curiosity factor it pretty much offers nothing.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

^
You're right - IP was built hard-fast against a highway ramp....that the developer knew was temporary because he'd been fighting with Secretary Salvucci about it and the location of his garage wall for years. And don't forget that IP was built AFTER Rowes Wharf, whose arch at the time opened onto that exact same elevated highway....but Leventhal had the vision to build something that responded to the future, not turned its back on a transient present. Frankly, I think it woud be trivial to improve IP's frontage on the Greenway - it's just a matter of the owner wanting to do it. And there is nothing forcing the owner to keep most of the retail on High Street vacant....if IP is any example of what the Arch could be, how could anyone buy into the "activate the Greenway" line after seeing how dead the edges of IP are?

 

[greenwayguy1982]

DZH, you wrote:
"what reason does anyone actually have to CROSS and, thus, USE the greenway now?"

Ummm...I dunno, the newly cleaned-up Harbor, the Aquarium, all the ferries/water taxis/commuter boats that pull up to Rowes and Long Wharves, Christopher Columbus Park, the Interconinental Hotel....the entire South Boston Waterfront...need I continue? Come on. If you're going to say stuff like that (followed by "I've walked to Rowes Wharf a few times"), I'm not sure how seriousy we're supposed to take your opinions....

And yes, I am a fan of Rowes Wharf. And it has about the same number of residential units and hotel rooms as the Arch proposal. You say it offers nothing but then say that the Arch would offer something? When they have the same number of people living and staying there? Not buying it.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

PS - DZH - everything lost money in 1989.

 

[KentXie]

DZH, you wrote:
"what reason does anyone actually have to CROSS and, thus, USE the greenway now?"

Ummm...I dunno, the newly cleaned-up Harbor, the Aquarium, all the ferries/water taxis/commuter boats that pull up to Rowes and Long Wharves, Christopher Columbus Park, the Interconinental Hotel....the entire South Boston Waterfront...need I continue? Come on. If you're going to say stuff like that (followed by "I've walked to Rowes Wharf a few times"), I'm not sure how seriousy we're supposed to take your opinions....

Those are reasons to cross but not to use the Greenway.

 

[Beton Brut]

You're right - IP was built hard-fast against a highway ramp....that the developer knew was temporary because he'd been fighting with Secretary Salvucci about it and the location of his garage wall for years.

I'm guessing that designing and constructing an underground garage in such close proximity to the harbor would be a pretty costly enterprise. I'd say it was good business to engage in a robust dialogue with the Secretary, as his Agency's highway project was happening literally steps away.

Also, take a look at our own GMACK27's photo:

See the ramp, over which the the blank wall of Daniel Libeskind's post-Katrina chicken coop may someday loom?

Looks like a great place to sip a latte...

Sure, the proposed Boston Center for Arts & Culture didn't exist in 1984, but I'll bet the off ramp the Center might be built above was part of the CA/T plan. The ramp's location limits the possibilities for that side of the street, doesn't it?

And don't forget that IP was built AFTER Rowes Wharf, whose arch at the time opened onto that exact same elevated highway....but Leventhal had the vision to build something that responded to the future, not turned its back on a transient present.

Rowes is attractive. I've warmed to it, although PoMo isn't my thing. As architecture, it's a novelty building. The arch serves its purpose to funnel people to the waterfront, the money-side of the building.

But take a look at this:

Check out that garage-ramp. Along that facade, do you see a barber pole, or a pastry shop, or a window displaying jewelry or designer clothing? Are there colorful awnings? Do you see any evidence that seasonal cafe seating is available on this side of the building?

Again, Rowes is a handsome building, but to suggest it offers its most engaging face to the Greenway is disingenuous.

Frankly, I think it woud be trivial to improve IP's frontage on the Greenway - it's just a matter of the owner wanting to do it.

Take a walk down there and look at it. Bring a copy of the ADA with you.

And there is nothing forcing the owner to keep most of the retail on High Street vacant....

Can you say for certain that the vacancy isn't driven by market forces?

if IP is any example of what the Arch could be, how could anyone buy into the "activate the Greenway" line after seeing how dead the edges of IP are?

That's a leap of logic worthy of Evel Knievel. Don't crash...

 

[Mayor Menino's Crohn's]

Is greenwayguy1982 a NIMBY?

And yes, I am a fan of Rowes Wharf. And it has about the same number of residential units and hotel rooms as the Arch proposal. You say it offers nothing but then say that the Arch would offer something? When they have the same number of people living and staying there? Not buying it

You're proving everyone's point on here. You, like all of your friends who live near the glorified median strip want Mumbles and the BRA to spur development...on YOUR terms!!! Because everyone is within lockstep with what you consider is "too tall," or "this building casts too big a shadow. I don't like it." It's really simple. If you live in a city, you're going to have to deal with skyscrapers, traffic (foot, motorcars, and transit), and other things that help bring revenue to the city.

All that Don Chiofaro is asking to do is build something that will connect the harbor to the "greenway." It's not going to be a Dubai type tower. His tower will give the city a bit more of an identity.

Here's a simple equation: If you don't like towers...move to Cambridge!

 

[briv]

Greenwayguy, you're becoming a nuisance. So, I'll ask you again:

Do you have a vested interest in promoting opposition to chiofaro's proposal? If so, I think it's clearly dishonest and unethical for you not to disclose this.

I have no problem with people personally or financially involved in projects posting on the board about those projects.However, I think most will agree that attempting to influence public opinion while portraying yourself as a concerned citizen when if fact you are merely promoting your own business/self interests is unacceptable.

Last chance to come clean, or else I'll help make you come clean. Don't force my hand.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

Briv,

Sorry everyone thinks I'm becoming a nuisance. I like this board because differing opinions can - in theory - be freely expressed and discussed, and my interest is in the future of the city and especially the Greenway because it's one of the best parts IMHO.

If my differeing opinions aren't welcome, or if they are being mistaken for "promoting my own business" (I don't have a business) to the point where I'm being threatened with....something?...I'll be happy to leave everyone to continue their circular diatribes and rants about why the Greenway is a dump and how the city has screwed it up etc and focus my energy in forums that matter, are noted by those in positions of influence, and might actually lead to some good coming out of them. I'm sure you'll still hear from me from time to time though

 

[Sicilian]

The board needs better rules regarding disclosure, or no rules.

I was asked to reveal my identity a few weeks ago, by one of many architects, developers and realtors on this forum, some of who indirectly benefit by cheerleading any and all projects. I have no professional interest in development, and only own my condo in the City -- which I obviously benefit from area improvements.

There is clearly a pro-development agenda by some on this forum, made evident when the quality of architecture and appropriate application of urban planning is not considered an important issue in their posts. Are architects, developers, construction workers, City planners, et. al., required to disclose their identities and possible self-enrichment by taking a particular posture? Is cheerleading every project any better or different than NIMBY obstructionism?

I don't agree with GreenwayGuy on his position, but many world-class waterfront cities do try to scale back density approaching the coastline, or when height encroaches on extremely valuable parkspaces. So his position, however annoying (and IMHO wrong), is worthy of consideration.

No disrespect, Briv, I'm sure you mean well or perhaps you know more than I do about Greenway.

 

[tocoto]

I don't post much here anymore but enjoy reading everything everyone has to say. My advice for what it's worth... Don't take the forum too seriously, it just a discussion and information source, best unedited.

IMHO we're lucky to have the Greenway even with its faults. It will get better with time, even though it may be a longer time than many thought when it was originally conceived. I remember all the complaints and disparaging editorials about the paperdoll-thin Palladian windows when IP was first built, but now most have come to like the building.