One Greenway (Parcel 24) | 0 Kneeland Street | Chinatown

Wow! Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it's ok for neighboring folks to bring over steak, burgers, dogs, etc. and grill out on those grills? If that's true, then hats off to the management of One Greenway!
 
Indeed. I bet that as time goes on however the staff at the building will probably start enforcing some unwritten rules about at least looking and acting like a person who could live there - at least that would be consistent with the kind of creeping privatization of 'open space' we've seen elsewhere....
 
CSTH said:
Indeed. I bet that as time goes on however the staff at the building will probably start enforcing some unwritten rules about at least looking and acting like a person who could live there - at least that would be consistent with the kind of creeping privatization of 'open space' we've seen elsewhere....
Click to expand...

I guess I see that "privatization" as a balancing act. If the gentle (or even not so gentle) enforcement of some level of decorum keeps the space safe and usable for most people, then I guess I am all for it.
 
CSTH said:
Indeed. I bet that as time goes on however the staff at the building will probably start enforcing some unwritten rules about at least looking and acting like a person who could live there - at least that would be consistent with the kind of creeping privatization of 'open space' we've seen elsewhere....
Click to expand...

But this space IS private according to the posted sign. The management has, I believe, generously invited their neighbors to use their facility. I see this as no different from private homeowners, members of townhome communities, highrise residential buildings, etc. inviting their neighbors onto their property to use whatever facilities they have for the owners....which is unheard of anywhere! I don't see this as a kind of creeping privatization of open space, this open space we're talking about is already private. No different from my front or backyard. Again, I do commend this community from inviting their neighbors to use their space.
 
Thanks, but I don't see anywhere in the link you provided where it says that a public park would be required. Frankly, I wondered if that was a condition of the developer to provide any sort of public park. Look, I remain outraged that the Hancock observation deck was closed (though no one seems to be able to find the agreement between the city and Hancock that an observation deck be provided as a condition to build) and I'm all for the maintaining of public spaces. I read the sign on the entrance to the park, saw that it was a private space for the use of residents but the public is invited as well to use the facilities (gas grills, tables, chairs), and thought, how generous, a generosity rarely if ever seen (I believe the Post Office Square park is similar). Having said that, if, indeed, this was to be a public space and is now private, well then, that's a different kettle of fish altogether.
 
Last edited:
^ Right on, i think we probably see it the same way. Frankly I don't know all the details either. Hope I didn't come off as confrontational.
 
This is an Asian Community Development Corporation project. It has had strong community support from the beginning. (The complex has a very high level of affordable units at low AMI%). While there was a lot of community involvement in the evolution of the design, the developer always included the open space as part of their community oriented concept. It was not some sort of trade-off.

So this is quasi-public open space, but it is owned by the development and managed by the building management company. It is not a public park, nor is it owned by the City.

And actually the rules posted are not that different than the rules you would find at a public beach, for example.
 
CSTH said:
Indeed. I bet that as time goes on however the staff at the building will probably start enforcing some unwritten rules about at least looking and acting like a person who could live there - at least that would be consistent with the kind of creeping privatization of 'open space' we've seen elsewhere....
Click to expand...

CSTH -- come-on -- Creeping Privatization of open space?? --

A much better example of your "Creeping Privatization" is the fenced-in area at Harbor Towers where the Harbor Walk detours

This is a small-scale version of Post Office Square Park -- the developer is offering to the public an amenity at the developer's own expense both for construction and on-going maintenance
 
This is built in part on land that was owned by mass dot.

You think the developer is doing this out of generosity and public spiritedness?
 
CSTH said:
This is built in part on land that was owned by mass dot.

You think the developer is doing this out of generosity and public spiritedness?
Click to expand...

Since the primary developer is the Asian Community Development Corporation, a nonprofit 501(c)3, actually yes, they are doing it in part out of their mission to the community.

And you apparently have no idea how hard they had to fight with Mass DOT to get that land back for the community (land that had been taken in the 1950's by eminent domain).
 
CSTH said:
This is built in part on land that was owned by mass dot.

You think the developer is doing this out of generosity and public spiritedness?
Click to expand...

CSTH -- it is built entirely on land once owned by his Britannic Majesty George III [Hanover] -- what's your point

Unless the park area was a condition of the development then Yes it was built from the assets in the owner / developer's pocket and is a contribution to the open space in the area
 
whighlander said:
CSTH -- it is built entirely on land once owned by his Britannic Majesty George III [Hanover] -- what's your point
Click to expand...

Actually this would have been King George III's water back in the day. This is the old South Cove. Landfill did not happen here until the 1830's.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Actually this would have been King George III's water back in the day. This is the old South Cove. Landfill did not happen here until the 1830's.
Click to expand...

JeffDowntown -- I'm sure for a loyal subject that the King would have been happy to make a grant of the land under the water just as easily as beyond the high tide line -- you however would be responsible for providing the fill or pilings
 
whighlander said:
Unless the park area was a condition of the development then Yes it was built from the assets in the owner / developer's pocket and is a contribution to the open space in the area
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a condition of development. And it was built with extensive public subsidies. My point id that those factors make this a variety of public space.

(King George? Really? Nice facts bro...)
 
CSTH said:
And it was built with extensive public subsidies.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that those subsidies were because this complex has a very high % affordable units at much lower than normal % AMI requirements. They were not for the open space. This was not a normal market development.
 
If it was proposed and approved with publicly accessible open space, then you can't disaggregate that commitment from any other part of the project.
 
CSTH said:
If it was proposed and approved with publicly accessible open space, then you can't disaggregate that commitment from any other part of the project.
Click to expand...

Publically accessible, but not purely public space. Owned, created, operated and maintained by a private concern, with allowances for reasonable access controls and rules.

It is not owned by the City of Boston nor the State (Well. I think the state owns the land still and leased it for 99 years). Neither the Parks and Recreation Department nor the DCR lift a finger to maintain this space. It is not a park. It is something of a hybrid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top