Rose Kennedy Greenway

HenryAlan said:
Yeah, you are missing something. Fundraising is the cost of raising all or most revenue, not just donations. I would not include interest or annual allocation as fundraising results, but everything else, should be considered.

The other thing I take some issue with is your assertion that taxpayers are funding 70%. Government contracts are not donations. They are privatized services. That means the conservancy is doing something for an agreed price and fulfilling the deliverable requirements of the contract. That is very different from simply being handed tax revenues. I'd be interested to know what the service is, and how the state measures peformance.

Fundamentally, though, the financial statements do not indicate poor management in and of themselves. The financial result is fine. The issue should be the extent to which they fulfill their mission. I think most of us agree that they've failed at that. Fortunately, the finances are strong, so with the right leadership, the conservancy might be able to do something about that mission. If I were a board member, that's where I'd place my focus.
Click to expand...


I agree the Financials seem pretty clean since they have nothing to show for it anyways. I Disagree with your assumption that Government contracts are not donations. Government money is taxpayers money. No matter how you look at it. It would be nice to get a comparison from the private sector to see how much a design and the yearly maintaince cost would be?

Then start to consider 3 options best for the taxpayers.
#1 Keep the Greenway Conservancy.
#2 Outsource the entire Greenway to the private sector...
#3 Sell off the parcels and let the private sector deal.

#4 Combine #2 and #3.....(which I think is the best bet) Make money for the taxpayers.
 
#4 May well be the best option. I don't know the particulars of their government contracts, but the ones my company have include fairly stringent and verifiable compliance requirements. The tax payers are buying a service from a private vendor. We can argue whether tax payers should buy the service, or whether it is in fact being provided by the vendor. But the idea of a contracted service is not inherently flawed.
 
The main problem with the Greenway is the unbuilt ramp parcels. Can these actually be sold off in any profitable manner?
 
Everything was so backwards from the beginning.

The ramp parcels should have been decked and made parks (based on the improbability of anyone affording to build on them), and the non-ramp pacels - either all of them or certain ones - should have been developed.

Seems so obvious now... was it really that difficult for them to visualize this at the outset?
 
Shepard said:
Everything was so backwards from the beginning.

The ramp parcels should have been decked and made parks (based on the improbability of anyone affording to build on them), and the non-ramp pacels - either all of them or certain ones - should have been developed.

Seems so obvious now... was it really that difficult for them to visualize this at the outset?
Click to expand...

What really boils my blood is our public officials continue to insult our intelligence by saying the Greenway needs more time to evolve. Especially BRA Kairos Shen-- this guy either has no vision for the city or is completely inept to reality.
 
Shepard said:
Everything was so backwards from the beginning.

The ramp parcels should have been decked and made parks (based on the improbability of anyone affording to build on them), and the non-ramp pacels - either all of them or certain ones - should have been developed.

Seems so obvious now... was it really that difficult for them to visualize this at the outset?
Click to expand...

For most of the non-ramp parcels, the tunnel roof tends to be near the surface; at its shallowest point, I believe between the park and the tunnel roof its only several feet. The deepest section of tunnel is near Dewy Square.

As has been discussed here before, one would have to forego basements, and/or cantilever buildings on big spanning trusses to build over the shallow areas of the Greenway parks.

For those interested in the tunnel design, see:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/centralarterytunnel/tlabcainterim.pdf
 
the Bulfinch Triangle development parcels are on top of the Artery tunnel. Why is it more feasible to build there than on top of the Greenway?
 
Ron Newman said:
the Bulfinch Triangle development parcels are on top of the Artery tunnel. Why is it more feasible to build there than on top of the Greenway?
Click to expand...

Because (from the Zakim) the tunnel incline drops down pretty quickly, and I would guess there is 20 feet or more between the roof of the tunnel and Causeway Street. And the alignment is pretty compressed, because it has to snake past the MBTA subway tunnels on the west. State Street is the highest point; State St forms the roof of the tunnel. Its high there because it is passing over the Blue Line. Dewey Square is the deepest, because it is passing under the Red Line. And State St. and Milk St. and India St., is where everybody wants to stick in the buildings to stitch together the urban fabric.

From High Street south you have ramps, which basically would leave, IMO, the parcel between High and India, which is on a curve, as the only parcel where building(s) on top might be feasible. You might get a 100 feet of footage fronting on India and 130 feet or so on High.
 
My initial reaction to that photo:

Giant mushrooms?? I wouldn't want to look at that every day.
 
^Beton Brut

Your thinking big. This is EXACTLY the direction we need in our public art and architecture.

Bring it on.
 
Nice to see that many people are noticing the conservancy is drawing six figure salaries for doing nothing. Questioning the cost of maintenance and programs, which have far exceeded any other similar park or agencies' expenditures, is also refreshing. The whole design is a joke, the programing is a joke, and the conservancy is a cushy lifetime job at the expense of others. It's about damn time that the public starts gripping their wallets tightly and asking, "Just what exactly are we getting for our money here?".

The roadways should be reduced to 2 lanes; with the eliminated lane going to either light rail (Kinki Ameritram please), or a combination of bike lanes/wider sidewalk/some additional street parking. Most of the parcels should be sold off to private developers with a few key parcels left as well defined public squares. The issue with the median feel from the roads would be resolved, the urban fabric repaired, and the public would get a series of nice activated public spaces along the corridor.
 
Who could blame them for resisting? Brennan and the Conservancy want to spend their money and not let them have a say in what the money is being spent on. They're not stupid, and realise that a big chunk of their funds would probably go to Conservancy salaries for doing more of nothing. It would not be a bad thing to turn the whole greenway over to the abutting businesses to maintain the parks in front of their business. Let them have naming rights if they wanted, i.e., Liberty Wharf Park at RKG; Intercontinental Hotel Park at RKG, and so on. It's possible that this scenario could cause competition with each park trying to outdo the other. Who cares what the Greenway is called as long as it achieves the desired result.
 
Sicilian said:
Your thinking big.
Click to expand...

"Make no little plans." Is it any wonder that Burnham's last large-scale project has been vandalized by an inept developer.

Ron Newman said:
Medellin's is a lot easier on the eyes.
Click to expand...

I agree, Ron.

And again, it's concept, not execution. I won't suggest that the wood elements of either of these designs would survive well in a harsh New England winter, so close to the harbor. Metal or composite materials, or a tensile structure could work just fine.
 
Last edited:
Post Office Square Park costs $225,000 a year to maintain, though I suspect that the number may be rather dated,, and possibly it may be 10 or more years old.

http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=20

However, there is this interesting factoid about the garage revenues:

After the debt has been paid, the partnership has arranged for the city of Boston to receive all profits from the garage. These funds are slated to be allocated to other neighborhood parks as well as to the city's general fund.
Click to expand...

The question is how close is the garage paying off the debt; it has been open since 1990.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top