Extend the Rose Kennedy Greenway

[stick n move]

Theres a chance here where the pike needs to be covered and its very hard to get buildings approved I think they could just extend the greenway from copley square all the way to the garden and it would make a very useful walkable route and it would make the greenway more valuable if it went all the way to copley.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

 

[stick n move]

just sayin its better than whats there now id obviously rather have columbus centers and all kinds of stuff but its not workin so far and all we have is a scar through the middle of the city

 

[omaja]

It looks pretty, but that space is far too valuable potential real estate to sink all that money to deck the whole thing for non-revenue-generating park land. Just like the RKG is a huge waste of potential development to weave back together the urban fabric of Downtown.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You're also not re-knitting Back Bay and South End together like North End and Downtown after their half-century separation. From 1834 to 1965 the Pike canyon was a contiguous train yard canyon all the way out to Mass Ave., three times as smelly and uninviting as the Pike. Those neighborhoods were never seamlessly connected. There were hardly any land-takings east of Allston to build the Pike. In fact, it created the largest new swath of developable downtown land since the BB landfill when that Northpoint-sized B&A yard became the Pru. They only leveled the surrounding South End blocks coordinated with the highway construction because of urban renewal = winning.

 

[bbfen]

/\ F-line, it also destroyed the intersection at Mass Ave and Boylston, a scar that lives on to today. It's rarely full war but there's been tension over this for at least 30 years. Before the Pike and its spawn, Christian Science, East Fenway was a small and self contained little neighborhood.

 

[Lurker]

There were plenty of land taking to build the pike. From West Newton to Boylston & Mass Ave street fronting buildings were obliterated for ramps or widening of the trench. What had been town and village centers around the railroad stations were usually chopped in half and left wastelands of empty or parking lots to this day. The entire area between Commonwealth Avenue and Beacon Street behind BU had residential neighborhoods, with long time residents, which lost half their buildings to the Pike only to have the remaining buildings gobbled up by BU in the two following decades.

 

[gooseberry]

I think that is a better place for a Greenway then the current one because it's next to the residential southend. Let's not give anyone any ideas though.

 

[CSTH]

You're on to something though. What if instead of building directly over the pike, we reconfigure the circulation so that the pike air rights become a higher capacity boulevard, and the land immediately adjacent to the trench which is now surface streets and buildings (level the grimy buildings, keep the nice ones ) becomes new development at a Columbus center scale?

The new boulevard would help with distribution to new eb and wb ramps, and it would be muc easier to build Columbus center over dry land than over the pike.

 

[KentXie]

I agree with CSTH

Only if the blocks next to it are allow to increase in density.

 

[underground]

level the grimy buildings, keep the nice ones

Interesting plan, but between the South End and Bay Village, I think when you get down to looking at what stays and what goes, too much would stay to make the whole project worthwhile. You're really just looking at the area around Back Bay Station and the stretch just south of Tufts Med Center.

 

[czsz]

Honestly frightened this will be found and seriously proposed.

 

[davem]

It could work quite well, and I think developers would be more likely to build on terra-ferma and canteliver a bit over the pike then have to build wholy on air rights.

 

[datadyne007]

Here's another way to think about what Dave has drawn up. There's much less incentive to build up/higher when the project is solely air rights. Structural design with supercolumns is incredibly expensive and carries huge liabilities. If I was a developer, I would not want to go up. I'd want to satisfy the program and keep the building as low to the ground as possible. By creating a boulevard down the air rights parcels and leaving development on firm ground, there is a much greater potential that developers will want to build higher, denser development. Maybe even you could put a light rail trolley down it or something.

 

[davem]

Thanks data. I worked on this literally all day, I was so inspired by the idea. Here's a closer view, I added some color to make it more legible.

The main roadway. I think this would be more successful than the greenway in that it allows the parcels adjacent to the street to be built out to the sidewalk instead of attempting to modify existing structures from a former street grid. I haven't calculated square footage but seat-of-pants I think there is actually more developable space this way.

I added both inbound and outbound off ramps from the pike off Arlington. I didn't continue the boulevard past Berkeley because it would create some crazy intersections, and the air rights are manageable there. I also love squares, so meet "Chandler Square".

 

[Shepard]

A little hard to see what's going on - would a lot of the buildings facing existing frontage roads need to be demo'd for this?

 

[davem]

A little hard to see what's going on - would a lot of the buildings facing existing frontage roads need to be demo'd for this?

Not a single building would need to be demoed. Essentially the blocks are being extended onto what was formerly the frontage roads, so new buildings would be constructed in front of what currently exists. Yellow is land freed up for new development.

(There are a few parcels where I put yellow over existing buildings, but they are small one story or otherwise insignificant buildings that should be redeveloped to form a more cohesive streetwall. A lot of the parcels are those in the south end master plan that were called for redevelopment anyway. I also took a few liberties in extending Chandler Street through to Arlington St as well as reconnecting Tremont with itself through Eliot Norton Park. This would also allow F-Line's F-Line to be built easier, since the portal is buried under that park.)

 

[Riverside]

This is such a noob question, but how valuable would air rights over the Pike really be? Wouldn't you be limited to building, well, really really light buildings because they'd have this great big hole in the ground below them, and wouldn't be able to support anything heavier?

 

[datadyne007]

This is such a noob question, but how valuable would air rights over the Pike really be? Wouldn't you be limited to building, well, really really light buildings because they'd have this great big hole in the ground below them, and wouldn't be able to support anything heavier?

Refer to what I posted in Post #14.

It's possible, but supercolumn design is extremely expensive and offers no incentive for the developer to go upwards. Anyone developing directly over the Pike would want to keep the building as low and wide as possible in order to turn a profit on the project.

 

[Kahta]

I like this proposal...

On a similar note.. I was thinking today of what the possibilities would be if the MassPike were downgraded to 6 lanes and more local access ramps were added. Is there enough space to squeeze in some additional ramps or would they be non-compliant with current interstate standards? I know that the lack of shoulders right now are already grandfathered in, as are the remaining granite curbs.