Rose Kennedy Greenway

IAM thinkin this RIGHT.. making the GREAT LEAP FROG FORWARD over week demoscratia .

Wow. At first I thought you were for this. This is just plain insanity. Almost all of the current building on the greenway is already over 50 ft. Give me back the central artery. This string of parks is snuffing out everything in the financial district.
 
Not. Talkin bout that BIG FRENDLY PANDA COUNTRY!!! But. This makes me thinking get CHINA to adopting the grunveldt!!! Like China TRADING DAYS!!! n OPEN THE DOOR POLICY!!! They showing how it get done. AND. ChinapeeplesHaving beaucups of CASH needing the new homes before Mr. Obama have big big flatio to devaluing the GREENBACK!!! You seeing the SIMATRY here! CHINA. GREENWAY. GREENBACK. FRENDSHIP YOU WILL SEE THAT IAM RIGHT AGAIN!!!
 
While I have no strong objection to towers in this area, I also see no strong need for them. Boston's most celebrated and successful neighborhoods (Back Bay north of Boylston, South End, North End, Beacon Hill) all get by quite well without them.
 
That's the point Ron, this is the ONE area of the city where towers are the norm. I would take up proverbial arms against anyone who tried to propose a 625 foot tower on Marlborough or Union Park (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this opinion). But this is the Financial District. The area is already towers. Boston is a very historic and beautiful city and many of the places that make it distinct should remain so. As a result, we should concentrate the towers to where it makes the most sense to build them, i.e. where they already exist.
 
The persistance to stiffle development in this city is undaunting. Does this mean the anitshadow bill got killed b/c it's stupidity already covered this area.
 
scenario-thumb-550x300-6497.jpg


I find it interesting that this diagram includes SST, along with what seems like two high-rises on either side of the Keystone building. What proposals are those?
 
Boston Globe - March 14, 2010
Lower heights, rising frustration
Mayor, developers trade criticism over Greenway proposal


By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | March 19, 2010

Boston officials yesterday unveiled new height guidelines for the city skyline along the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway that would allow only modest-size buildings closer to the waterfront and a few skyscrapers at inland locations where they would not overshadow public parks or Boston Harbor.

The proposed rules establish a framework for future development that would occur along the Greenway. City officials identified 19 properties in the corridor from South to North stations that could be redeveloped, adding in total 5 million square feet of new stores, offices, hotels and residences. In some cases, the new rules would allow for taller buildings than current zoning permits.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the height restrictions on these particular properties are intended to prevent shadows and strong winds thrown off by tall buildings from making the Greenway a cold, uncomfortable place. Tall buildings would also create a wall that would block pedestrian access and views to the city?s waterfront, Menino argued.

?I don?t want to Manhattanize the Greenway,?? the mayor said. ?The idea has always been to have a connection between the downtown and the waterfront, and that?s what we?re trying to protect.??

Menino said yesterday he had already begun hearing complaints from developers that the height restrictions will make redevelopment economically infeasible. But he argued taxpayers who spent billons of dollars removing the old elevated Central Artery should not have the Greenway ruined by developers trying to maximize profits with the tallest building possible.

?It?s very shortsighted of developers to complain that they paid a lot for their property, and they want a return on their investment,?? Menino said. ?I don?t think that?s right. The taxpayers paid to create the Greenway, and they want it to be accessi ble.??

One of those developers is Don Chiofaro, who owns the 80-foot high Harbor Garage near the New England Aquarium. Current zoning would allow Chiofaro to construct a building no taller than 155 feet high. It?s common for developers to seek permission to build beyond zoning limits, and the Menino administration has been accommodating to many such requests.

In Chiofaro?s case, however, he wants to replace the garage with a pair of towers that would be at least 625 feet high. The new proposals, meanwhile, would cap Chiofaro?s buildings at around 200 feet, city officials said.

Earlier this week, Chiofaro complained Menino officials won?t engage in negotiations over his proposal and said he may abandon it because the looming height restrictions would make it impossible to raise money to build anything.

Last night, Chiofaro?s partner said that outcome now appears likely given the 200-foot restriction. ?Apparently, they would rather have an 80-foot garage than a modern and exciting development that we could all be proud of,?? said Ted Oatis, cofounder of Chiofaro?s development firm.

The proposed height guidelines were drafted by city planners hired to study the Greenway during the past year and make recommendations that can be used to establish parameters for development. The guidelines for individual parcels are still being refined and will not be finalized for several weeks.

As with the Harbor Garage, most of the redevelopable properties would face height limits from 50 to 200 feet, nowhere near the size of some skyscrapers that have been proposed. The proposed guidelines would allow for tall buildings at three locations: the Congress Street garage at Haymarket, where the tallest new structure could top out at 50 stories; the so-called Richardson block between Congress and Pearl streets on the inside of the Greenway, to 600 feet; and an NStar site nearby, to 350 feet.

Another property owner that would be affected by the restrictions is the site of the Hook lobster pound at the corner of Atlantic and Northern Avenues. The family?s building burned down in 2008 and it is now working with the Beal Co. to redevelop the property.

The new guidelines would limit buildings there to 125 to 175 feet. A Hook family lawyer last night said the proposed limitations would make it difficult to devise a workable project.

?We?ve got to put something there with enough value for us to be able to afford to build it,?? said the lawyer, Edward Jager.

But Kairos Shen, the city?s chief planner, disagreed with those dour assessments from Chiofaro and the Hooks. He said economic conditions will improve, allowing developers to borrow money again, even for smaller projects within the city?s guidelines. He pointed to a 13-year effort in New York City to redevelop the corridor of the old West Side Highway, which has given rise to multiple building projects in recent years.

?Our economic competitiveness as a city does not depend on the Greenway parcels being built-out right now,?? Shen said, adding that large redevelopment projects elsewhere in the city, such as on the South Boston waterfront, would create jobs and economic activity.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.

?I don?t want to Manhattanize the Greenway,?? the mayor said.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
 
"He pointed to a 13-year effort in New York City to redevelop the corridor of the old West Side Highway, which has given rise to multiple building projects in recent years."

It takes around that long to construct just one tower in Boston.
 
?I don?t want to Manhattanize the Greenway,?? the mayor said.

But you are perfectly fine with Altantaizing or Phoenixizing it.
 
"Make no small plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized."
 
How long is his term? Also did he just throw out the Greenway study that said density and towers was what the area needed and shadows is a superinflated concern?
 
"A failed city". That's what we'll be remembered as. We might as well start comparing ourselves to Buffalo or Syracuse (or maybe even Utica) where will we be in 100 years compared to similar cities? Looks pretty bleak, doesn't it?
 
The Mayor and BRA are setting development in the city back 100 years - to a time when 50' - 200' buildings were appropriate and economically viable in this area.

...and please explain how Chiofaro's towers will block access to the harbor more than the hulking garage does now.

The Greenway will never be a success without more people (more development). How is this fact lost on the BRA?
 
Not to mention, the BRA previously said he could build 2 400ft towers or 1 250ft tower, both larger than the new study.
 

Back
Top