Fixing the Greenway?What it should have been

OK got it, so maybe I shoudl say then they should make a rd underground under storrow dr.

But yes, if there is a highway underneath then why keep "storow dr" so busy?
 
I think of the park as a reminder of the shit that use to be standing there, the large structure that was ugly and shaded the city. It shows how Boston and society has decided to tear that down and build something better, an underground tunnel and a nice park to enjoy. I think the park in no way separates two sides. It is an actual defined separation, but it is more welcoming than the overpass and aside form traffic, I think it attracts people.
Click to expand...
You're right. The "greenway" is a reminder of when Boston voluntarily blitzed itself in a fit of anti-urban mania and suburbanized its downtown. I think people who would rather see buildings on the "greenway" want to reverse that, not memorialize it. (or take it up a notch, as the greenway does in my oppinion)

I like the trolley idea, but I think it should be something that would be built as kind of a phase one of a new line that would eventually be extend in both directions somehow. If you make it a toy train, it won't be anything other than a useless tourist trap. They could be smaller than Green Line trolleys, but not too small.
 
Here's what I would do:

htb5t4.jpg


Yellow = buildings
green = parks
grey = streets
white lines = light rail
 
I never agreed with the Greenway being 90% park, but your proposal makes me realize I wouldn't want it 90% buildings either. A few more pocket parks where crowds gather towards the waterfront - for example, where the carousel is now, or Dewey Square - could be very vibrant public spaces.
 
Well, its not that much park land, but when spread out along the length it is, it becomes not as practical as a large less narrow area. That is the problem, who is going to walk or use that entire length of park unless they are bored or curious.

However I do not like the buildings taking up most of the area. There should eb some other draw to the parks and something to make them more practice, which is why I thought more of a market/booths/huts in an outdoor market style setting may be better. It is more attractive than buildings yet it is more practical than just a narrow strip of gardens and green way.

On the transport idea, too small is too much of a toy, I understand that, which is why I then added in the thought of a raised monorail or rail of some sort.
 
Doesn't filling this awkward strip of grass in the middle of a highway with carousels, or kiosks, or clowns, or big balls of yarn feel ... a bit gimmicky to anyone else?

Is there that much reason for anyone to keep returning to a park with a few gimmicky attractions if its fundamentals are broken (e.g., it's a median strip surrounded by highways, or there's just one row of buildings on the other side, limiting the number of residents who live nearby)?

The real problem is that there's no *city* where the Greenway is; thanks to the BRA's urban redevelopment schemes in the 50s and 60s, there's already too little of central Boston in the sense of densely packed neighborhoods, stores, apartments and offices. Taking a primely situated tract of it and banning any human habitation doesn't help. Without more development, the Greenway will be the Faneuil Hall of city parks: a place tourists always go to see, but which doesn't offer a whole lot for regular use. The difference, I suppose, is that those tourists at least spend money at Faneuil Hall, it's a fairly beautiful historic area, and there're many places (however skeezy) to get a drink.
 
1 Columbus Center - 1 Ned Flaherty = success!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top