The MLK memorial is a real, funded project. A big difference, IMO.
Is funding the criterion that determines whether a thread goes in “Development Projects” or “Boston Architecture & Urbanism”? I wasn’t aware of that. I lumped the Greenway ideas with the MLK Memorial more in terms of things like “scale” and “look and feel” and “urban context” and “public function” and similar stuff. Things that to an architecture/urban planning layman make one thing resemble another.
If being a “real, funded project” is the criterion that qualifies a thread for inclusion in the “Development Projects” sub-forum, then it’s not being applied very consistently. Actually, it seems like it’s not being applied at all. Shouldn’t the threads discussing the Back Bay Garage towers, the Motor Mart tower, the Hook Lobster tower, the Aquarium Garage tower, the Jean Gang tower at Kenmore, the Hurley Building Tower(s), the Flower Exchange towers, the possible resurrection of the Copley Place Tower, the redevelopment of Widett Circle, a Boston soccer stadium, etc. be in the “Architecture & Urbanism” sub-forum, since none of them are “real, funded projects”?
Maybe it would be easier to be consistent if in the future all threads for new proposals were opened in the “Architecture & Urbanism” sub-forum by default and moved to “Development Projects” only after the proposal has been approved by the city and the developer has lined up funding.
Is there a precedent for amusement rides / water parks over a highway, anywhere in the world?
What’s precedent got to do with it? Nothing ever has a precedent until someone does it and creates the precedent, which as it happens is something Boston takes pride in itself for: being the first city to do this, that, or the other thing. Being the first city anywhere in the world to create amusement rides / water parks over a highway would be completely in keeping with its character and history.
And let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill, or a highway out of a highway on-ramp.
The financial cost of construction, maintenance, plus a surety bond for eventual demolition, plus 'typical' insurance, etc. for what would be a seasonal operation would necessitate an exorbitant, perhaps prohibitive ticket price. (The operator presumably would be leasing air rights from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, as the sovereign, might have some relief from tort liability. This would not apply to a private company lessee.)
Sorry, I’m not a lawyer or amusement park operator so I can’t offer a response to your legalistic twaddle. Here are my responses to the verbiage that I do understand.
Your example of a car crashing into a building is not applicable. Roads and highways are public necessities.
You’re conflating two different situations/arguments. Roads and highways may be public necessities, but roads and highways next to buildings are not. In fact, the federal government requires that roads and highways go nowhere near some of their buildings. Aren’t the owners of the building on Corinth St. and the woman whose house was obliterated by Anne Heche entitled to ask the government that those requirements be applied to their buildings for similar reasons?
Roads and highways are public necessities. An amusement ride is not.
Kind of ironic for you to write that here, because a lot of the discussions on aB and other architecture/urbanism forums argue the opposite: Civic spaces (in which I include the Greenway amusement rides) are public necessities, roads and highways are not. Especially in cities, and especially in the densely built downtown areas of said cities. Like, say, down by the Greenway.
Going beyond these particular amusement park rides, what you’re saying at a more general and fundamental level is that roads and highways are public necessities, but spaces where the public can congregate to enjoy themselves and participate in civic life are not. Let’s hope no rapacious construction or RE development people stumble across your post, because logical (don’t know about legal) extensions of your argument gives them
carte blanche to tear down paradise and put up a sixteen-lane highway interchange.
One thing I do like about your argument is that it can be used to bring the endless tedious discussion in the Allston I-90 thread to an immediate and definite close: roads and highways are public necessities. Scenic strolls and bike rides along the Charles are not. Case closed.
