I guess I just don't think it's appropriate to say that any filling of the Charles or any construction of a boardwalk over the Charles will, by rule, result in an ecological trade-off and/or in lower-quality park space. The Charles River Esplanade is itself fill from within the last 100 years, and the City is better off for it. And the current Paul Dudley White path through this area is, um, hardly an ecological treasure or a public space to be proud of. Fill and boardwalks need not be bad; if executed well they can
improve the river's edge. We're building boardwalks over the harbor in the Seaport
right now and they're unequivocally improving the pedestrian experience in that neighborhood.
In the perfect world, there would be plenty of space along this stretch to include all the auto and rail and pedestrian and bike infrastructure we could want plus a healthy "natural" shoreline without touching the river. But that just isn't the case. Even if we do go the viaduct route we'll still get only a measly little bike path and shoreline without filling the river.
If it's a sacred rule that we can't touch the Charles shoreline, then yeah, maybe it does make sense to build a viaduct. But if we put that aside and imagine the possibilities we could create if we allowed the shoreline to be altered, then constructing another highway viaduct along here doesn't make a lot of sense. And all things considered, it's hard for me to see why an untouched shoreline + viaduct is preferable to an at-grade solution accompanied by a redesigned shoreline.