Rose Kennedy Greenway

If the entire Greenway had been designated as building sites, it would probably still take decades to refill with urban fabric. Look at how slowly the Bulfinch Triangle is going.
 
Before there was a Big Dig, there was a good-sized fire on Blackstone St., that burnt out a bunch of the food shops there. The city thought, 'Ha, this is the perfect opportunity to convert the food stalls and shops into a modern (meaning sanitary, climate-controlled) public market'. Plans were proposed, IIRC, there was even a rendering or two. But the vendors and shop owners shot the whole idea down, and quickly. So Blackstone Street remains unchanged.

The block where the fire was is now the small parking lot behind the Millennium hotel, and the row of food shops that still remain on Blackstone St.

Think how much more the Greenway would be a destination for Bostonians if Blackstone St. had become even a smaller version of the Pike Place Market, or San Francisco's Ferry Building.
 
Czsz, Statler, you both sound like sour grapes hoping that the Greenway is a complete failure. I don't know if that's the tone you intend to strike, but it seems as if you're consumed by some sort of orthodoxy that proclaims the Greenway can and will never work, and even if it ends up well-used then those who enjoy it are ill-informed and stupid. The bad news for you is that it is not a complete failure, and nor will it be. I think there are only a few things that can be said about the corridor overall:

1) The city is unambiguously better off without the elevated artery (+)
2) Further development around the Greenway will increase its use (+)
3) The adjacent roads carry too much traffic and prioritize automobiles (-)
4) The governance system is opaque and the resulting "sacred cow" mentality is grating (-)


I agree with your post especially with #1.

The one problem I have is the unlimited amounts of money spent on this strip.
You forget with all the costs from the big dig to the Greenway, the yearly maintenance costs and all the other bullshit agencies that come along with this cluster fuck project which is now becoming a blackhole of useless taxpayer?s money.

How can you call a park a success when the city can't even afford to run the maintenance costs per year without Federal Govt Grants?

Is the park better than the Elevated Artery? Absolutely, but when do these costs actually make sense economically for the taxpayers and the city.

Let?s spend another 100Billion of taxpayers? money and build a super waterfall and have it come down on Congress St. Garage. ECT ECT. Wasted money.

Sometimes you actually have to let the private sector take control and let the park be molded in time by Boston's Best and Brightest not some state & local charity organizations that have no incentive to make anything work.

Will the Greenway ever live up to its expectations overtime? Only with development built towards the Greenway besides that it won't ever be a destination location for tourists. It's just a Median strip to walk through.
 
The way I remember it the fire was very suspicious and very quickly afterward the Bostonian Hotel had drawings of it's expansion onto this site. Those food shops were the first floors of buildings, mostly federal that had their upper floors removed after the depression to lower their taxes.
 
Central_Artery_1975.png


I had assumed it was first dreamed up around 1980 or later.
 
I can honestly say that the BRA does not know what they are doing.


http://bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1277045&srvc=business&position=2



Next-generation Greenway
Proposals would alter look, feel
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, August 26, 2010 - Updated 11 hours ago
+ Recent Articles

E-mail Print (0) Comments Text size Share Buzz up!Editor?s note: As the economy improves, Boston developers have their sights set on massive new projects. In this series, the Herald examines plans for the city?s New Frontiers.

It?s been a long, expensive trip from freeway to Greenway, but Hub developers and residents are looking forward to reaping the benefits of putting the Central Artery underground.

Built in the 1950s as the nation?s love affair with the automobile was accelerating, the Central Artery was the dream of traffic planners to build an elevated highway through the city.

But the dream quickly soured. After more than 20,000 residents were displaced and 1,000 buildings demolished to build the city?s other Green Monster, it quickly became one of the nation?s most congested highways.

Today, the Artery is just a bad memory and the road was reborn beneath the city after taxpayers spent billions on the 3.5-mile Big Dig tunnel. In the aftermath of the the nation?s most expensive highway project, more than 10 acres of green space has been created where the highway once stood along a 1.5-mile stretch, now known as the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority recently issued development guidelines for the Greenway from the North End to Chinatown that allow construction heights from 55 feet at the Bulfinch Triangle to 600 feet in the Financial District.

?Creation of the Greenway changed the face of the city,? said Ronald Druker, who owns buildings on Kingston Street near Chinatown. ?But successful open spaces need edges. If you look at Rockefeller Center, Central Park and Piazza San Marco (in Venice), all of the world?s great urban spaces have buildings at the edges.?

Kairos Shen, the city?s chief planner, said the linear park will encourage up to three million square feet of office, residential and retail development.

?All of these critical parcels define Boston?s DNA and the city?s image and ... will impact the character of the downtown?s future,? he said.

The city identified 19 parcels of land on the Greenway as key to this New Frontier, including several where proposals have already been floated, such as the Government Center Garage, the Boston Harbor Garage, the Hook lobster site, several vacant lots near the TD Garden and the Dainty Dot building near Chinatown.

Perhaps the most controversial project proposed for the Greenway is Donald Chiofaro?s $1 billion development that would replace the seven-story Harbor Garage with a 40-story office tower and a 59-story residential building with retail shops, a 350-room hotel and condos. But the plan has faced harsh criticism from Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who insists the project is too tall and would destroy views of the harbor from downtown.

The Greenway guidelines limit the height of any project at the garage site to 200 feet, or about 20 stories. Chiofaro says a building at that height is not economically viable. This fall, he plans to offer a compromise to keep a $1 billion waterfront project afloat with a shorter building. Still, it?s unclear whether a building of any size can get city approval given the ongoing conflict between Menino and Chiofaro.

Developer Ori Ron purchased the Dainty Dot building on Kingston Street in 2006 for $9 million with plans to convert the former manufacturing plant into 200 luxury condominiums. But given the glut of high-end downtown condos that are going unsold, Ron said he plans to do a mix of condos and apartments in the 26-story building. He expects to break ground next summer.

?The Greenway is a challenging location, but it presents lots of opportunities,? he said. ?We believe our project will activate the edges of the Greenway without interfering with it.?

The Raymond Property Co. filed a $2.3 billion plan in early 2009 to demolish the 11-story Government Center Garage and replace it with two skyscrapers. But the project stalled over a series of disagreements with City Hall and neighborhood residents. Raymond was replaced by Thomas O?Brien, who once ran the BRA. O?Brien has been trying to lease the office space above the garage and recently landed a state agency. A source said O?Brien plans to scale back the project. O?Brien did not return a call seeking comment.

The Hook lobster location at Atlantic and Northern avenues has a height limit of 175 feet, which could make it difficult to get anything built on the tiny parcel. The Beal Co. has an option to purchase the site and has had discussions with the BRA about construction of offices or residential use, sources said.

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation selected Boston-based Trinity Financial to build a supermarket and up to 275 units of luxury housing on Canal Street along the Greenway. Construction on the 12-story, $150 million project could begin next summer.

Robert A. Brown, a principal at CBT, a Boston-based architectural firm, said many of the parcels are so small that developers won?t be able to build the simple square boxes that are efficient but don?t offer unusual designs. ?Because these are not square sites, very beautiful buildings could be created,? he said. ?All of sudden you have the fabulous Greenway sitting there vs. the back end of the Green Monster.?
 
The Raymond Property Co. filed a $2.3 billion plan in early 2009 to demolish the 11-story Government Center Garage and replace it with two skyscrapers. But the project stalled over a series of disagreements with City Hall and neighborhood residents. Raymond was replaced by Thomas O?Brien, who once ran the BRA. O?Brien has been trying to lease the office space above the garage and recently landed a state agency. A source said O?Brien plans to scale back the project. O?Brien did not return a call seeking comment.

The BRA should thank Chiofaro for drawing attention away from this travesty. There should be no scaling back of this site.
 
So basically the city has imposed height limits on all valuable Greenway fronting land, making it impossible for development. Failure of epic proportions.
 
^ ... and at the same time mismanaged re-development where height actually makes it viable, e.g. Government Center Garage.
 
So basically the city has imposed height limits on all valuable Greenway fronting land

To be fair the height limits were already there (e.g., 155' at the Aquarium garage). The trouble in the past has been a lack of clarity as to who/where/why the BRA arbitrarily allows developers to exceed the heights and forces others (e.g., Chiofaro) to abide by them. I suspect that will continue to be a problem with the new height limits (or "guidelines" as they're euphemistically referred to by the BRA).
 
To be fair the height limits were already there (e.g., 155' at the Aquarium garage). The trouble in the past has been a lack of clarity as to who/where/why the BRA arbitrarily allows developers to exceed the heights and forces others (e.g., Chiofaro) to abide by them. I suspect that will continue to be a problem with the new height limits (or "guidelines" as they're euphemistically referred to by the BRA).

The Mayor actually determines what gets built and what doesn't get built in the city. Which I have no idea how this guy can actually determine what gets built with no prior experience in developing, building or sometype of architecture background.

That?s why politics is so F*cked up today. These people just have too much power.
 
I think the BRA needs to look up the definition for the word "Guidelines." Guidelines only serves to guide developers on what actions it should take. They are not a "set rules" that cannot be changed, but the mayor and BRA refuse negotiation of any sort, acting as though guidelines are law.
 
all of the world?s great urban spaces have buildings at the edges.

Always wonderful when the obvious is presented as some instructive new lesson. It shows you how far back urban planning and thinking in Boston has regressed.

?All of sudden you have the fabulous Greenway sitting there vs. the back end of the Green Monster.?

It's even worse than I thought. Apparently no one can understand architecture without analogy to baseball. (Besides which, it's not like the Green Monster is detestable as a blank wall is. Imagine the consequences: "What's wrong with the Green Monster? It's a beloved part of Boston. In fact, why not put baseball diamonds on all the empty sites adjacent to the Greenway? Open space good, buildings bad!")
 
Quote:
all of the world?s great urban spaces have buildings at the edges.

Always wonderful when the obvious is presented as some instructive new lesson. It shows you how far back urban planning and thinking in Boston has regressed.

Can we take out Storrow and put in buildings now to prove this statement true?
 
I see what you're saying, but the Esplanade isn't really an "urban" space in the way the Greenway could/should be, it's a pleasant park that's pleasant because it's easily accessible from the city and is adjacent to / has nice views over the water.
 
I see what you're saying, but the Esplanade isn't really an "urban" space in the way the Greenway could/should be, it's a pleasant park that's pleasant because it's easily accessible from the city and is adjacent to / has nice views over the water.

Well, that's sort of the way it is now, now that is is cutoff from the Back Bay, but at one time, it would have been considered a much more urban park.
 
We discussed this on page 314-15 of this thread,

Pulling this thread towards a much-needed diversion...

Does anyone know what the deal is with the huge parking lot at Fulton and Cross Streets? This is very close to the North End greenway parks, and I'm surprised I haven't heard about any development proposed for it. Anybody know of anything?


Recent update from the BRA's new guidelines from NorthEndWaterfront.com:

There was one significant height revision on Tuesday night when the Board of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) approved the guidelines created through the Greenway District Planning Study. Instead of the previously presented height range of up to 85 feet high for the Fulton St. parking lot (Parcel 11B), the BRA ceded to the public uproar to maintain the neighborhood tradition of 55 feet as the maximum height. The height at this particular parcel was the most often mentioned comment at a July 19th neighborhood meeting with the BRA. The North End/Waterfront Residents? Association, along with many others, advocated for this change from when the draft guidelines were originally presented. (Read NEWRA?s letter (pdf).) Most recently, City Councilor Sal LaMattina went on the record to keep the 55 feet, in-line with current zoning.

While the North End continues to fight for its 55 feet height limit, the rest of the guidelines contain substantially greater density throughout the length of the Greenway.

Parcel11BPkgLot.jpg
 
I am in agreement with the height restriction for this particular parcel. (For just about every other case, not so much.) This one is part of the North End and should be in line with the rest of the neighborhood.
 

Back
Top