Downtown Crossing/Financial District | Discussion

Lurker said:
Chopping a lane out of Tremont street along the Common on the Downtown Cross side could work really well in improving the pedestrian experience. Hell it would be an opportunity to squeeze in a cycle track too. It's unfortunate that what should be a prominent street facing the parkland is full of crummy fast food joints and convenience stores. Added space for actual cafes and restaurants could dramatically transform the character of that stretch.

Re-landscaping the Common and restoring the perimeter fence will do much to improve the aesthetics of the area as well.

One can only hope that something serious can be done about improving the Park Street and Boylston Street MBTA head houses soon too.
Click to expand...

Lurk -- Tremont has always been a major artery -- there is no way anyone is going to narow it

Chck-out the photo from the 1930's

http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6309388994/in/photostream/lightbox/

6309388994_f9b7a882e0_o_d.jpg



In fact there were major and nearly iconic structures that were removed or moved to widen it several times as well as slicing some of the width of the Common (which had to be voted on by the Citizens)

http://article.archive.nytimes.com/...971859&Signature=c6OqoXyJCRyBDRYhdgc7ooFlGXQ=


In Childe Hassam's great paintng we see Tremont St. prior to the Green Line tunnel and street widening

31.952_full_1024x713.jpg



Most pedestrians use the Common side of Tremont -- which is more than sufficiently wide for any number of pedestrians and paralleled by a promenade

I wil reinterate my earlier comments about the nature of the shops and restaurants along the part of Tremont bordering the Common -- they are utilitarian places -- serving the students, commuters and visitors who need something quick -- just as is the Common is a utilitarian park -- a place for day to day activity -- nothing realy fancy (the Brewer Fountain being the one exception)

If you want fancy -- you want the Public Garden and the perimeter of the Public Garden along Boylston where the Four Seasons and along Arlington St. where the Taj (nee the Ritz) is located -- those are the fancy places -- where people go as a destination to eat, see and be seen
 
Last edited:
You'll notice there's no perimeter fence around the Common in that painting ...
 
You'll notice there's no perimeter fence around the Common in that painting ...
Click to expand...

Isn't that a small wooden split-rail fence at the painting's left, along the curb?
 
Tremont was a two way street, now it is a one way street. There is no need for on street parking on this stretch either. The Central Artery and RKG surface throughways didn't exist at the time of this photo. For these reasons I believe Tremont could be narrowed with no ill effects.

As far as the Common and environs being utilitarian, is that all we really really want to strive for? Mediocrity is acceptable when excellence could be achieved at a prominent location? Where's the imagination in that?
 
Ron Newman said:
Isn't that a small wooden split-rail fence at the painting's left, along the curb?
Click to expand...

The artist may have left the larger fence out for the sake of composition. I'm sure every one also noticed that the sun does not set at that location during the winter.
 
Lurker said:
Tremont was a two way street, now it is a one way street. There is no need for on street parking on this stretch either. The Central Artery and RKG surface throughways didn't exist at the time of this photo. For these reasons I believe Tremont could be narrowed with no ill effects.

As far as the Common and environs being utilitarian, is that all we really really want to strive for? Mediocrity is acceptable when excellence could be achieved at a prominent location? Where's the imagination in that?
Click to expand...

+1. I felt the spirit of Daniel Burnham ("Make no little plans") in that post, Lurker.
 
There were times that the Common had a fence and times it did not. I guess my point was that having a fence can be seen a way as privatizing a public space, but who cares.

boston_common.png
 
Anyone else notice two entrances for northbound trolleys? Now there's two for southbound and just one for northbound.
 
Lurker said:
As far as the Common and environs being utilitarian, is that all we really really want to strive for? Mediocrity is acceptable when excellence could be achieved at a prominent location? Where's the imagination in that?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. My answer is that the Common as utilitarian, in spite of prominent location, is kind of cool. I like that there are softball fields and a place for assemblies. I have always viewed the Common as the back yard, with the Public Garden as the front yard. I get your point, but with the Garden so close, I don't see a need for something similar right across the street.
 
HenryAlan said:
I have always viewed the Common as the back yard, with the Public Garden as the front yard. I get your point, but with the Garden so close, I don't see a need for something similar right across the street.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The dichotomy of the two types of parks is one of the things I love about that area. The Garden is for strolling through and the Common is for playing, recreation, sunbathing, etc. I don't think it needs to be turned into a forest of trees and water. That's what the Fenway, Jamaica Pond, and the Arboretum are for. We are so fortunate to have the Emerald Necklace.
 
We don't need to turn the Common into the Public Garden (nor should we) in order to improve its boundary with Tremont Street.
 
Let's not forget that the Common acts as Emerson's, Suffolk's, etc "quad" too because they don't have a real campus.
 
Sad. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=02199...r=Boston,+Massachusetts+02199&t=h&deg=90&z=19

What is contained behind the nearly windowless two or three stories above the sad excuse for retail?

Why - WHY - is that horrible cheap and disastrously mis-scaled red awning tolerated?

Overall, I don't know if the building needs a wrecking ball per se, but it definitely needs a complete redesign of everything below the actual residential portion.
 
The building is horrible but I can almost understand the overwhelming desire for balconies overlooking the Common. Bad idea?

Can that windowless area be a few above grade parking levels? Please say no!
 
The windowless area is indeed above ground parking

boston_common.png


Can any car buffs give an estimate of when this photo was taken based on the cars on Beacon St?
 
If I had to hazard a guess (and I am by no means an expert on classic cars), I'd say the mid-to-late-forties, maybe early-50s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top