Ideas for the Greenway

xec

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
658
Reaction score
555
Here are two ideas I have for turning the onramp/offramp Greenway parcels into usable and fun public spaces without having to deck them over.

1. Make the Haymarket parcel a waterpark similar to these:

n3pByTB.jpg


Build decks/pools on the periphery of the parcel, similar to Parcel 12, and build a waterpark structure similar to the pictures above over the road. I'm assuming this would be easier and less expensive than fully or partially decking the parcel. Can anyone confirm that?

Here's a diagram illustrating the general concept.

rBjlP7R.jpg



2. Put a roller coaster in the Dock Square parcel.

lQuUCuL.jpg


From the pics below it looks like a rollercoaster similar to the smaller one at Canobie Lake Park could be shoehorned into the site.

IS6X8KT.jpg


Thoughts, anyone?
 
Here are two ideas I have for turning the onramp/offramp Greenway parcels into usable and fun public spaces without having to deck them over.

1. Make the Haymarket parcel a waterpark similar to these:

n3pByTB.jpg


Build decks/pools on the periphery of the parcel, similar to Parcel 12, and build a waterpark structure similar to the pictures above over the road. I'm assuming this would be easier and less expensive than fully or partially decking the parcel. Can anyone confirm that?

Here's a diagram illustrating the general concept.

rBjlP7R.jpg



2. Put a roller coaster in the Dock Square parcel.

lQuUCuL.jpg


From the pics below it looks like a rollercoaster similar to the smaller one at Canobie Lake Park could be shoehorned into the site.

IS6X8KT.jpg


Thoughts, anyone?
I'm thinking that if an accident happens wherein someone or something falls from the overhead rides onto the roadways beneath, it would be a liability issue. The liability concerns would be a deal killer, IMO.
 
I'm thinking that if an accident happens wherein someone or something falls from the overhead rides onto the roadways beneath, it would be a liability issue. The liability concerns would be a deal killer, IMO.

Maybe you could stretch a big, sturdy net between the rides and traffic?
 
Maybe you could stretch a big, sturdy net between the rides and traffic?
I think the perception of excessive risk and danger would still be there, even with the nets. If something falls onto the nets, pieces could still fall through the nets to the roadways below. These types of rides need to be on solid ground, or at least a solid lid, IMO. Liability drives everything these days.
 
My only area of expertise is software development, so I can't really address your comments. Hopefully, other aB members with relevant qualifications are able to address your objections, and maybe offer work-arounds to the issues you've raised. If worse comes to worse, I suppose the city could have some sort of "ride at your own risk" disclaimer if the law allows that.

The other question I can't address is whether any of this is doable in the first place from an architectural/engineering/financing standpoint. I'm hoping aB members will be able to provide some insights.
 
I think the perception of excessive risk and danger would still be there, even with the nets. If something falls onto the nets, pieces could still fall through the nets to the roadways below. These types of rides need to be on solid ground, or at least a solid lid, IMO. Liability drives everything these days.
I think this is more a question of probability than liability. How likely is something like the scenario above likely to happen, and how much damage is it likely to cause? I mean, if you go by the news stories below having streets and buildings next to each other is a major liability.


 
I love this but I think this thread is better suited for the Boston Architecture & Urbanism sub-forum, no?
I think the topic of this thread is generally comparable to the MLK Memorial thread, so I put it here rather than the Architecture & Urbanism sub-forum to try to be consistent.
 
I think the topic of this thread is generally comparable to the MLK Memorial thread, so I put it here rather than the Architecture & Urbanism sub-forum to try to be consistent.
The MLK memorial is a real, funded project. A big difference, IMO.

Is there a precedent for amusement rides / water parks over a highway, anywhere in the world?

Regardless, the ramps are owned by the Commonwealth, not the city.

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.) Your example of a car crashing into a building is not applicable. Roads and highways are public necessities. An amusement ride is not.
 
I found this video of a 2014 presentation of parcel constraints of Parcel 12 at the 49 minute mark and Parcel 6 at the 1 hr mark. Greenway Parcels There is some discussion about a "highline" type of structure to span both parcels. I see the potential at Parcel 12, not so much at the other ramp parcel at Government center garage. The speaker is very good.
 
Last edited:
Here are two ideas I have for turning the onramp/offramp Greenway parcels into usable and fun public spaces without having to deck them over.

1. Make the Haymarket parcel a waterpark similar to these:

n3pByTB.jpg


Build decks/pools on the periphery of the parcel, similar to Parcel 12, and build a waterpark structure similar to the pictures above over the road. I'm assuming this would be easier and less expensive than fully or partially decking the parcel. Can anyone confirm that?

Here's a diagram illustrating the general concept.

rBjlP7R.jpg



2. Put a roller coaster in the Dock Square parcel.

lQuUCuL.jpg


From the pics below it looks like a rollercoaster similar to the smaller one at Canobie Lake Park could be shoehorned into the site.

IS6X8KT.jpg


Thoughts, anyone?

I, too, love a waterpark and amusement park thrill ride as much as the next Roller Coaster Tycoon alum. However, the pragmatic adult I've matured into wants to point out the immediate concerns that arise with what you're proposing.

The waterslides/waterpark would be a maintenance nightmare... not only for the elevated facility itself, but especially for the Central Artery infrastructure beneath the surface. Water penetration from the surface has a long-term impact on the structural integrity of the Central Artery and ramps. Adding pools and water slides above these will further accelerate the rate at which MassDOT needs to invest literally hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain the I-93 tunnel. On top of these concerns, the facility would not be usable for nearly half the year due to frigid temperatures. You can make an argument about an enclosed waterpark facility and enclosed water slides a la Great Wolf Lodge or Jay Peak Resort working in a winter climate, but the maintenance costs to operate all seasons in such a facility most likely far outweigh the market rate families are able/willing to spend to go to a water park.

Similar to the waterslide idea, I think a roller coaster's not viable for about half the year. I use to fantasize about a wooden or launching roller coaster that would operate from North Station to South Station like a shuttle train... but such a facility would decimate the natural environment that's evolved the length of the Greenway... not only with shadows and/or light pollution, but particularly noise pollution. The screams from roller coaster riders would not make great neighbors to multimillion dollar downtown condo owners (et al).

In a downtown rife with built environment, the most special new developments are ones that enhance/increase the natural environment and our access to it. I would welcome something like New York's recently opened Little Island elevated over the ramps, and providing parcel connectivity via pedestrian bridges over some of the cross streets like N Washington, Sudbury, and potentially Hanover/North Streets. We should be reevaluating opportunities among our vehicular infrastructure to create more places for people to just be.
 
In a downtown rife with built environment, the most special new developments are ones that enhance/increase the natural environment and our access to it. I would welcome something like New York's recently opened Little Island elevated over the ramps, and providing parcel connectivity via pedestrian bridges over some of the cross streets like N Washington, Sudbury, and potentially Hanover/North Streets. We should be reevaluating opportunities among our vehicular infrastructure to create more places for people to just be.
I like the Little Island concept together with short stretches of a Highline type structure for pedestrian connectivity over major roadways. My before/after concepts (shown below) for the ramps could have a Highline structure added to advance the pedestrian environment along RKG.

32018566322_d06809d5c0_c.jpg


32167107405_33d6ce749f_c.jpg

32018566532_fc979c97bc_c.jpg


31792131990_e1536eb6e2_c.jpg
 
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.
 
1.)
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”?

All the projects you listed have developers associated with those sites. For many of the sites, e.g., the Aquarium garage, the developer has spent real money and prepared proposals that have undergone review by government agencies. For other sites, e.g., Hurley, the government has solicited development proposals. For the soccer stadium, the Krafts have long spoken of their interest in having a new stadium, and they have the money to bring that about. Your ideas are for sites that you have no property interest in, nor is there is any indication that the property owner -- the Commonwealth in this instance,-- is currently soliciting proposals for their development. And if the Commonwealth was soliciting proposals, the RFP would set parameters on the types of development that would be considered as responsive to the parameters. Perhaps, you should submit your ideas to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority..

2.)
My only area of expertise is software development, so I can't really address your comments. Hopefully, other aB members with relevant qualifications are able to address your [referring to other posters] objections, and maybe offer work-arounds to the issues you've raised. If worse comes to worse, I suppose the city could have some sort of "ride at your own risk" disclaimer if the law allows that.

The other question I can't address is whether any of this is doable in the first place from an architectural/engineering/financing standpoint. I'm hoping aB members will be able to provide some insights.
.......
Sorry, I’m not a lawyer or amusement park operator so I can’t offer a response to your legalistic twaddle.
-----------------------------
3.)
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?
.....
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.

A., I never said that civic spaces are not public necessities.
B., Colonial Boston's street grid was laid out after houses were built. The roads and paths eventually connected the houses.
https://goo.gl/maps/EAXy3HLrByjREpAz7
^^^This is Google streetview of Lee St., a Colonial era street in downtown Marblehead. How should the town of Marblehead protect these houses from errant drivers like Anne Heche?

I am unaware that the Federal government "requires that roads and highways go nowhere near some of their buildings".* If you are thinking of new Volpe, or the n ew FBI office in Chelsea, the Federal government didn't require the street be moved; instead, the government introduced a buffer zone between the street and the building on the building site..

* The Federal government has permanently closed public streets in the District of Columbia that surround the White House.. These streets include Pennsylvania Ave NW to vehicular traffic, East Executive Ave. and West Executive Ave to both public pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and E St. NW to vehicular traffic.
 
I like the Little Island concept together with short stretches of a Highline type structure for pedestrian connectivity over major roadways. My before/after concepts (shown below) for the ramps could have a Highline structure added to advance the pedestrian environment along RKG.

32018566322_d06809d5c0_c.jpg


32167107405_33d6ce749f_c.jpg

32018566532_fc979c97bc_c.jpg


31792131990_e1536eb6e2_c.jpg

There was already a proposal put out that was very similar to this concept.
 
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.

Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure certainly are public necessities.
 

Back
Top