Rose Kennedy Greenway

There'll be a small plaza in front of the NCAC, but going by these two images the circular plaza Campbell refers to is temporary.
ncac-Aerial_View.jpg

9-2-07_boston_stock_3975-236.jpg
 
In today's "Metro" there was a small blurb about one of the temporary parks being turned into a tree nursery of some sort. The idea would be to make it more visually appealing, and more inviting until the buildings slated for that spot can be designed and built...which I believe they said was about 5 years down the road. Anyone else know anything about this?
 
I guess if the mayor doesn't like this plan, then the city should pick up the tab.
DiMasi to offer Greenway upkeep bill
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | December 11, 2007

The state would pay $5 million a year, covering all of the basic maintenance costs of the new Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway in downtown Boston, under legislation Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi said he would soon file.

DiMasi's legislation would also turn over control of the Greenway immediately to the private group that has been charged with overseeing the urban parkland, instead of in five years as scheduled.

"The Greenway is going to be one of the great parks in the world," said DiMasi, who grew up in the North End and called it part of "my front yard."

Rose Fitzgerald Greenway Conservancy chairman Peter Meade said a lingering question over the parkland has been, " 'How do we establish a clear state financial responsibility?' I think the speaker has done it."

DiMasi's announcement was made to a small group attending the inauguration of The Mothers' Walk, a four-block stretch of the Greenway.

The conservancy is selling 900 paving blocks that will be placed along one edge of the walk, each with the name of someone whom the buyer wants to honor.

They cost $500 each, and are available at the Greenway website. About 180 have been sold so far.

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is scheduled to maintain the parks until 2012, and then would gradually turn control over to the conservancy.

DiMasi's legislation would effect an immediate transfer of control. He also suggested that the $5 million be funded from money the state is already spending annually on the Big Dig.

DiMasi's bill would also expand the conservancy's 10-member board and require a financial contribution from the Turnpike Authority.

The conservancy is privately raising money, with about $18 million committed toward its goal of a $20 million endowment by the end of this year.
Click to expand...
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/12/11/dimasi_to_offer_greenway_upkeep_bill/
 
Last edited:
A Globe editorial today:
A manager for the Greenway

December 15, 2007
IN AN IDEAL WORLD, the City of Boston would own the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway and contract with the private, nonprofit Greenway Conservancy to maintain it, just as New York City does with a similar group for Central Park. But the Menino administration wants nothing to do with the Greenway, now controlled by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, unless it receives money from the state.


This string of parks, from the North End to Chinatown, will receive heavy use once it is fully open next year. The Turnpike Authority neither wants to nor is qualified to maintain the parks.


The Greenway Conservancy, in its first three years of existence, has demonstrated skill at fund-raising and constituency-building. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi is to be commended for devising a plan to cede control to the conservancy, the one group that wants the job. But his plan has flaws and should not be rushed through the Legislature without a hearing.


The conservancy has long been scheduled to take over the Greenway in 2012. DiMasi would speed that up, ceding control to the conservancy by the end of 2009 at the latest. He wants to expand the group's board from 10 to 13 members and include local legislators (one of whom is DiMasi) and representatives of affected neighborhoods. Both are sensible ideas.


But DiMasi would give the conservancy control of the Greenway for 99 years, at no charge, similar to what the state did in 1990 for the Massachusetts Horticultural Society at the Elm Bank Reservation in Wellesley. The Greenway, a public park in the heart of Boston, should not be relinquished to a private organization for so long. It's better to follow the New York model, in which the city puts an eight-year limit on its maintenance agreement with the Central Park Conservancy. A renewable 10-year lease would be fine, too.


In New York, the Central Park Conservancy has been active for 27 years. This year, it raised $21.5 million for maintenance from private sources, with only $4.5 million coming from the city. In Boston, private money may not be so forthcoming.


To solve this problem, DiMasi would give the Greenway Conservancy $5.5 million from fees paid to the Registry of Motor Vehicles each year. The Legislature needs to think hard before earmarking fees collected in the western part of the state for the exclusive maintenance of a Boston park. How about a special fund for all the state parks, or a special assessment on commercial properties in the neighborhoods that benefit from the Greenway?

The Greenway, which runs through neighborhoods with different needs and tastes, is a tough place to manage properly. It needs an organization with special dedication, technical ability, and political skills. The Legislature should give the conservancy the authority, within reasonable time limits, to do the job right.
Click to expand...
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...ticles/2007/12/15/a_manager_for_the_greenway/
 
Rose Kennedy Greenway Giveaway

But DiMasi would give the conservancy control of the Greenway for 99 years, at no charge, similar to what the state did in 1990 for the Massachusetts Horticultural Society...
Click to expand...
A formula for neglect, graft and corruption (virtually guaranteed in this State with such a sweetheart deal).

Remember the MDC?
 
All of this discussion is premature

The few things that I think that Campbell got right about the Greenway were:

1) ??it's helpful to remember that even great cities don't always get things right for the first few centuries?. It took half a millennium to finish the Piazza San Marco, in Venice?.?
2) ??.A lot of things are going to change around the Greenway, some of them soon. Privately owned sites on both sides will reorient themselves toward the new parks, to take advantage of this valuable frontage. Buildings will sprout new wings and entrances and, one hopes, coffee bars and restaurants with tables and chairs?..?
3) ??.Also due to change is the resident population. As more people come to live downtown and become users of the Greenway, it will be safer and livelier.?..?
4) ??.Maybe, if we live long enough, some of these will bring a splash of vitality and a more human scale to a stretch of land that feels, today, shapeless and unfocused?.?
5) ??So this is a very preliminary report?..?


I suggest that we wait until:

1) Don Chiofro has his new project underway on the site of the old Aquarium Garage {and thus an interest on both sides of the Greenway with his deep pockets partner Prudential Insurance}
2) Russia Wharf gets built and starts generating usage
3) Intercontinental Hotel settles in for a few years as a major venue
4) Dainty Dot and that other garage project get underway if not built
5) maybe a few more


By about 2015 we'll know:

1) how much day to day individual use is generated by office workers at noon, joggers in the morning, kids and families on the weekends
2) how much special event use ? perfect venue for Harborfest, First Night
3) how much ad hoc use by small groups ? Campbells soccer games on the Northend lawn
4) whether the ramps will be covered by the currently proposed buildings -- I'm kind of hoping several will not {Liebeskind and the ship}
5) whether other ad hoc proposals such as the Armenian plaza {the round one} get proposed and perhaps built
6) How about a glass roof open sided town market with a great sundial befitting the fundamental science

In the meantime treat everything as temporary {tree nursery} --- but do the necessary maintenance -- much like Copley Square and let the already planted stuff grow-up a bit a la Post Office Square. Then let's due a walk through a la Campbell {with some background knowledge} -- say in 2015 and make some more permanent decisions about the next few decades of the Greenway. With the proviso that all of it will look different in 2115 no matter what we do.

Westy
 
Greenway madness

By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist | December 19, 2007

Pity those poor developers. Having paid premium prices - that is, way too much - for choice spots on our spectacular new Greenway they now find themselves trying to build to the sky to satisfy their investors' requirements for fat returns.

Developer Ori Ron is under growing pressure to rethink his 27-story-and-shrinking tower on the site of the historic Dainty Dot building on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway near Chinatown. International Place developer Don Chiofaro, a man for whom size always matters, is said to be considering as much as 60 stories at his newly acquired garage next to the New England Aquarium. But the most over-the-top example of this build-'em-high Greenway madness comes from Ted Raymond, who is looking for some way to justify the silly $243 million he and his pension fund investors paid for the huge eyesore of a garage at One Congress St.

Raymond is a man not to be outdone. According to several executives and planners who have been briefed on his preliminary plans, Raymond is talking about not one tower, not two, not three, but as many as four towers where the garage now stands and on an adjacent city-owned block. The main tower is projected to be as high as 800 feet, another tower as large as 600 feet, and two other smaller towers would be between 200 and 250 feet, said one of those executives.

While the plan is still preliminary and the drawings Raymond has been shopping are considered "conceptual," he is considering a mixed-use project of residential, office, and retail that would total more than 3 million square feet - or nearly three Prudential Towers, executives say. Parking would likely expand beyond the current 2,300 spaces.

The good news is nearly everyone who has seen Raymond's trial balloon says it is way too much. Even the mayor, who has rarely seen a big building he doesn't like, is rolling his eyes this time. "He was told this was way too big," said one city official after Raymond met recently with Paul McCann, the Boston Redevelopment Authority's longtime go-to guy. Raymond is to meet with the BRA's new director, John Palmieri, on Jan. 7.

Among other things, Raymond has explored moving the proposed YMCA from its spot on the Greenway to a prominent location in his adjacent development as a way of creating leverage for taller towers. John Ferrell, chief executive of the YMCA of Greater Boston, said he has met twice with Raymond and is "willing to listen," but is going ahead with his current plan on the Greenway. "We don't see it as an active option for us at this point," Ferrell said.

Those involved in the project say the BRA's McCann has suggested Raymond consider buying the adjacent block owned by the city that includes the New Chardon Street police station. If that were to happen, Raymond could expand his current vision to four towers, said one executive. Raymond is considering using the two smaller towers for elderly housing, this executive said. A hotel is also in the mix.

Yesterday, Raymond agreed to meet with me on his project, and then backed out. In a statement, spokeswoman Justine Griffin called discussion of the development "premature and speculative. . . . Only early discussions have been held and preliminary guidance sought from the BRA." Raymond's projects have included Trinity Place in Copley Square and Flagship Wharf in the Charlestown Navy Yard; his Turner Hill Golf Club in Ipswich was an artistic success and a financial bust.

All this talk of height and density on the Greenway is being driven less by demand than by the high prices developers paid for these parcels. Take a walk along the Greenway and you will be pleasantly surprised how well it is coming out, starting with the incredible new North End park. After spending $15 billion to get here, the last thing we need is local developers building Manhattan-scale towers to satisfy the needs of institutional investors in Washington, London, and elsewhere.

The mayor inadvertently opened a Pandora's box when he proposed a 1,000-foot tower in the Financial District. But just because some developers were foolish enough to overpay, doesn't mean we need to be foolish enough to overbuild. The measure of success should not be how much we build, but how well we build it.
Click to expand...

Hmm i should have just bolded the whole article because its a good albeit nimbyfied read.

Link
 
Raymond is a man not to be outdone. According to several executives and planners who have been briefed on his preliminary plans, Raymond is talking about not one tower, not two, not three, but as many as four towers where the garage now stands and on an adjacent city-owned block. The main tower is projected to be as high as 800 feet, another tower as large as 600 feet, and two other smaller towers would be between 200 and 250 feet, said one of those executives.

^Lovin' it! Ugly building to go and new towers to come.
 
I haven't seen the One Congress plan, but this doesn't seem like the spot for super tall. I'd like to see buildings that reflect the scale of the rest of the Triangle, and the Blackstone blocks.
 
^ Bailey hasn't seen it yet either, but that doesn't stop him from publishing a column in the Globe about it. What an uninformed, knee-jerk piece of garbage that column was. It would be nice if there could be some reporting in place of his babushka-esque opinions, from which one could logically conclude that the Financial District and the rest of downtown Boston would be best replaced by Waltham Center. This article is the kind of "big-mean-developer-versus-the-little-guy-like-you-and-me" tripe that the Globe and every other paper loves to print; there are actually few other places where it's possible to inject so much opinion on the basis of so little fact.

What if political reporting were done on that model? "George Bush is winning the war in Iraq; we all know it, no matter what the facts say." Other business reporting? "Genzyme is a company that tries to turn people into mutants, and we should all hope it goes belly up." But with real estate "reporting" it flies. That stuff reeks of Ellsworth Tooey.
 
After spending $15 billion to get here, the last thing we need is local developers building Manhattan-scale towers to satisfy the needs of institutional investors in Washington, London, and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

jeezch1.jpg
 
So builders are only allowed to go higher if there is a demand, not to get a return on their investment?
And these people that think Boston is becoming "Manhattanized" need to actually go to NYC. Boston will never become as large as NYC, and that is a good thing. It's the economic center of MA and all of NE for that matter. People want to invest in the city and it should be welcomed, not shunned upon.
Highrise developments were to be expected upon completion of the Big Dig. Downtown is now very desirable, and in turn, more expensive. Again, it is downtown. It is where you want highrises to go!
 
because the LAST think we would EVER want to do is compete with a world class city like NYC....
 
It would be nice if there could be some reporting in place of his babushka-esque opinions, from which one could logically conclude that the Financial District and the rest of downtown Boston would be best replaced by Waltham Center.
Click to expand...

I think what most of these writers & NIMBYs are hoping for is more a Liberty Square type downtown rather than Waltham Center.
Aesthetically, I can sympathize but I'm also smart enough realize that a viable, competitive, modern downtown cannot function at that scale.
 
I'm surprised that Bailey didn't see that 4 towers at 800, 600, 250, and 200 feet translates into the real goal of 1 tower at 462.5 feet, which I don't think is very unreasonable. This developer isn't an idiot...
 
Has Bailey ever before referred to the Greenway as "spectacular"?

We all know any plan for an 800 footer will go through the BRA meat grinder and will come out a squat 400' tall, 200' wide box.

The location is not ideal, but a slender 800' tower on the edge of the greenway is, contrary to Bailey's opinion, hardly the equivalent of leaving a burning turd on the city's doorstep.
 
Terrifying picture -- it's marred by that tower on the ... left.

Now, if we could only get rid of the Federal Reserve bldg., the new towers on the right would look a lot nicer :)
 
2 parcels

Don't forget that this is realy two parcels, one small one east of Congress St and one huge one west of Congress. It would be impossibe to build one tall building on the west side, it would be a giant wall. I would guess there would be at least two buildings on this site. The city owned site would be the 4th building. This would realy fill a void in the skyline.

This could be an incredible oportunity for the city, transportation, entertainment ect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top