Ideas for the Greenway

[Charlie_mta]

I found the old thread. https://archboston.com/community/threads/cap-the-cat-on-off-ramps-rose-kennedy-greenway.5418/

And the study that I was referring to by northendwaterfront I had posted in there.
http://northendwaterfront.com/2015/...oncepts-ready-for-environmental-review-video/

Wow, you're right, those concepts and mine are remarkably similar.
The one from 2017 posted on aB that I really like is this one by Stefal, having an element of urban grit by incorporating sections of the old Northern Av bridge:

I made this a while back while the Northern Ave Contest going on. I doubt this is possible, but I essentially took parts of the Northern Ave bridge and covered the set of ramps closest to Quincy Market. When I submitted it, I had retail and restaurants in mind, but after the fact, I think a History Museum would be more suitable here.

Another angle showing how it fits in with the rest of the greenway.

Extra photo.

 

[xec]

Reading all the comments generated by my off-hand idea of covering a highway ramp with a water park has given me a real gut-level understanding of why after 14 years of work and 5 billion dollars spent California still has no high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The day you sideline the John Roeblings and Daniel Burnhams and let the lawyers and activists and bureaucrats and beancounters drive the agenda is the day you go from being a nation that can build the Transcontinental Railroad and the Erie Canal and Hoover Dam and the Brooklyn Bridge and the interstate highway system and land men on the moon to a nation that can't cover a measly 200' X 400' highway onramp with a frigging water park, not because there are insurmountable engineering problems that are beyond the state of current construction technology to solve, but because of liability issues and surety bonds and property interests and questions of jurisdiction and reviews by government agencies and similar bureaucratic folderol. aB'ers are free to defend the need for all these if they want, but keep in mind that this sort of bullshit is how you can spend 5 billion dollars building a high-speed rail line only to pull the plug 14 years later with absolutely nothing useful accomplished.

 

[xec]

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.

You need to get out of the mental rut you're in, where the usability of roller coasters is determined by existing precedent, and try thinking like a Bostonian instead. If the problem with roller coasters is that they can't be used year-round then try to build the first roller coaster that is usable all year round. Boston likes to brag that it is a city of firsts and that it has brain power coming out the wazoo. Maybe some of the whiz kids at the local colleges would enjoy the challenge of designing a year-round roller coaster? The first of its kind ever? Another "first" for Boston's trophy wall?

Reading your post gives me the feeling, though, that you're more the type that prefers to make small plans that won't stir the hearts of NIMBY's or create downtown light pollution (even though everyone on aB is constantly screaming that Boston desperately needs more light pollution because it is the darkest, dingiest city on the planet). Yes, I know I'm taking an ad-hominem cheap shot, and I'm sorry if that's an egregious mischaracterization on my part, but that's the mindset that comes across.

 

[xec]

Dude, you're not a victim of the fall of western civilization, your idea is just dumb.

Dude, show me the exact line in all I've posted since the start of this thread where I say that I'm a victim of the fall of western civilization. If anything, I'm a victim of people with poor reading skills who post dumb replies criticizing my comments not for what I wrote, but for what they mistakenly believe I wrote due to their limited reading comprehension.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Dude, show me the exact line in all I've posted since the start of this thread where I say that I'm a victim of the fall of western civilization. If anything, I'm a victim of people with poor reading skills who post dumb replies criticizing my comments not for what I wrote, but for what they mistakenly believe I wrote due to their limited reading comprehension.

Insulting people doesn't work well on an internet forum. I have to remind myself occasionally to lighten up.

 

[xec]

Insulting people doesn't work well on an internet forum. I have to remind myself occasionally to lighten up.

It would have been more appropriate for you to address your comment to BronsonShore, since he's the one who insulted me, but apparently reading skills aren't your strong suit either.

I'm outta here. This is officially my last post at aB. There must be other architecture fora out there where people have better reading comprehension.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I'm outta here. This is officially my last post at aB. There must be other architecture fora out there where people have better reading comprehension.

Bye Felicia!

 

[tysmith95]

Build an elevated railway for the north south rail line using the Greenway

 

[jklo]

Wait, the first post wasn't some sort of satire?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Build an elevated railway for the north south rail line using the Greenway

As a concept I actually like this idea. The Greenway would still be usable, and a relatively inexpensive railway link would be provided. I'd want to limit the overhead railway structure to two tracks, as it would be hovering over the Greenway. Something like this wouldn't be so bad in my opinion:

From a constructability standpoint, I don't think the existing highway tunnel roof would support the weight of the rail structure. Ideally you'd want to place the elevated railroad piers directly above the highway tunnel's walls, but I don't think that would be possible at many of the sites along the route.

 

[kingofsheeba]

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:

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.

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

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

Thoughts, anyone?

Doesn’t the Greenway already have a public waterpark? No massive water slides, but maybe you should build your own city where people can do this, because I’ve never known cities to put up money for outdoor water slides. I’ve just never come across this idea. As someone mentioned, maybe an indoor water slide?

 

[Brattle Loop]

As a concept I actually like this idea. The Greenway would still be usable, and a relatively inexpensive railway link would be provided. I'd want to limit the overhead railway structure to two tracks, as it would be hovering over the Greenway. Something like this wouldn't be so bad in my opinion:

Given the lengths that were gone to to get the highway torn down, I'd imagine there'd be a storm of outrage at the prospect of even a much-lower-impact elevated anything going in there. Kind of a shame, to be honest, it'd be a decently place for something like Disney's monorails (which are, incidentally, quiet and reasonably-low-visual impact). Elevated would also negate the usual issue that kills off discussion of using the Greenway for a heritage trolley line, the cross-street traffic problem.

Can't run Commuter Rail through there without an atrocious amount of pain through the North Station area, and I'm not actually certain whether it would even be possible to shiv in a connection to the south side lines because of all those spaghetti ramps. It'd be a pretty poor excuse for an NSRL. You'd avoid a ton of pain if it was HRT/LRT or something else, but then it's mostly going to be a North-South shuttle (which has some utility), a tourist attraction (which also isn't necessarily a bad thing) or both.