Rose Kennedy Greenway

today
075-4.jpg
059-7.jpg
060-7.jpg
063-5.jpg
 
Boston02124 said:
today
075-4.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh god... just look at the shadow the customs house and the other buildings cast on this!

but in all seriousness, if this much is already in shadow, why cant anymore buildings be build that would shadow roughly the same area?
 
^found5dollar

It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that city parks may have a particular function that is more successful in sun than in shade, especially at peak hours of use in the late spring and early fall.

There needs to be some balance that ensures the City have an incredible amount of density, while figuring out what makes sense in terms of park use.

The problem with the ongoing development/planning discussion is not a fear of shade. It is that the discussion focuses on each project on a parcel-by-parcel basis, with no great vision of where density belongs and no sense of where and how the Greenway can represents its best potential as a park with a range of uses.

The fact that the City has a hands-off attitude about the Greenway may be part of the problem. If we had a very progressive Mayor in terms of both development and public realm, we might also have a planning department that would be capable of setting the groundwork for a master plan encompassing the entire Greenway and the properties on both sides.

I know I'm waking up Rip Van Greenwayguy because he'll tell us we already have such a plan (Harborpark zoning blah blah blah) but I don't think that gives us the sufficient density, as you are alluding to.

The discussion shouldn't always be framed as sunlight vs. development. We could have both, with some wisdom and brainpower at the top.

PS: I edited my post. It was originally above Ron's question.
 
Last edited:
Sicilian,

If you read back, i am one of the few people on this bard that does not lambaste the greenway. I think, that with a lot of work, it could become something truly spectacular. I was just pointing out that the majority of the issues i have heard about development here, including the recent greenway development study that i think you alluded to, are that they want to minimize shadows and not block views from other buildings. All i was pointing out is that a very famous building in Boston already casts a long shadow on the park system.

Personally i agree with you that better planning is needed, especially of the type where virtually every building will not need a zoning variation like right now. The large master plan they have written makes very little sense in my book, and again just about anything that is built there will need a variance or two, or three.
 
Agreed on all your points.

It is quite striking that the City would consider a public amenity as significant as the RKG as an entity existing in isolation, not part of a large and complex development puzzle to be considered under one roof.

If I was an abutter on the harbor side (i.e. Rowes Wharf), I might rush to jam a carousel or an Anish Kapoor bean into my front yard to preclude any development on the opposite side of the Greenway that could put my lawn into shadows. Something tells me that a hodgepodge of disparate sculpture and programming projects could emerge as parochial turf wars determine the fate of each parcel.

Menino made it quite clear that extensive planning experience was not a qualification for the new BRA Director. That's a hint where we're going, at least in the the near term.
 
a hodgepodge of disparate sculpture and programming projects could emerge as parochial turf wars determine the fate of each parcel
Click to expand...

You make that sound like a bad thing, but I'd like to see it. It would greatly enliven the Greenway.
 
Art is at its best when it considers context. What I described as a hodgepodge is called "plop art." In few instances in Boston, it works. In most instances, it does not reach the potential of a great city -- one which would attract the attention of visitors worldwide for sculpture that served a transcendant function greater than memorials or representations of familiar forms.

In more recent years, Boston has moved towards funding temporary projects which in many instances don't rise to the potential of a particular site. Another trend is toward public art projects which due to meager funding and sketchy curatorial qualifications have attracted professionals (architects, landscape design professionals, etc.) who can afford the time and costs because the visibility is valuable.

Of course, the above is purely drawn from personal observation and a matter of opinion. I don't expect you to agree.
 
OK, but you also referred to programming, which I assume means markets, public events, performances, festivals, outdoor exhibits, etc. If each parcel had a different group of people responsible for such things, we'd have a lot more going on there.
 
"Programming" is generally understood as spending money to get people to occupy a civic space.

SOME level of programming makes sense for the Greenway. I have no problem with markets, etc.

But again, for the potential Boston has as a "world class" city, quality planning would result in a natural flow of people WANTING to go to the RKG without having a constant stream of money thrown at programming spaces.

A) Great permanent civic spaces should have been planned, and should be planned by a forward-thinking administration. In addition to considering the creation of great civic spaces on the RKG, the groundfloors of ALL abutting new construction (any building that requires substantial changes in zoning) should be subject to requirements for groundfloor uses that stimulate pedestrian activity. In NYC, great groundfloor spaces, retail or civic, are often subsidized by the commercial units on upper floors.

B) As I've said numerous times before, planning for a massive density of residents along the Greenway would be the best investment in the City's long-term health and viability. Residents naturally activate spaces and don't need to be paid to do so (i.e. through paid programming). Anyone who tells me that Boston doesn't have the demand for an additional 20,000 residential units is either A) misinformed, B) concerned about a possible short-term decrease in property values, or C) has some agenda. I'm well aware of studies that show there are 35,000 potential residents who would move to Boston in a minute if the housing stock in the downtown area was substantial. The opposition to new construction of residential projects is largely political and often from local homeowners who don't realize that long-term the value of the downtown rises as a result of a thriving neighborhood.

So, IMO, programming is a necessary but a shortsighted approach. As with its public art, Boston's way of doing business is spending short money instead of making the difficult decisions requiring a long-term investment.
 
The city is focusing all of it's resources on Fan Pier and the Seaport District aka (the innovation distict). The city has chosen these areas over the Greenway and DTX area.

The Greenway should be booming with sometype of Boston vibe, Restaurants, shows, cafes, but looking at those pictures up above the only thing booming is the lack of people walking around the park. It plainly sucks.

The Greenway does have potential in the North End area which Siclian is right about residents naturally activate spaces , but from Harbor Garage to SST it's a complete disaster. Nothing appealing in that area at all besides wasted space.
 
I also would put some of the blames on the surrounding sides of the Greenway. There's literally little to nothing that attracts people from International Place down to South Station.

And is Pearl Street even necessary? Connect those two blocks together and let the drivers use Congress St to get to the other side.
 
KentXie said:
I also would put some of the blames on the surrounding sides of the Greenway. There's literally little to nothing that attracts people from International Place down to South Station.
Click to expand...

Atlantic Wharf is a great example.

Before construction, oddity retailers on groundfloor (ship models).

So, developer (Equity Office) secures significant variances from original as-of-right purchase from City Hall. No contingencies in approvals for developer to subsidize retail/civic spaces on the groundfloor. Now there's a Starbucks and (inside) a Boloco tent.

Developer was asked to cough up some civic space by Impact Advisory Group et. al. So Boston Society of Architects snags a few thousand square feet, some of which will be kiosks. But developer locates BSA space on the 2nd floor, along with some additional remnant space on 2nd floor for temporary programming... Cyberarts this month.

Groundfloor holds mostly lobby, some mundane commercial.

Nothing walking along the groundfloor that a pedestrian or tourist would be drawn to on a sunny afternoon. NOTHING.
 
I forgot about that chandlery. It was always fun to drive by when my parents took me through the city when I was little. But I guess it's pretty difficult to support business when rent increases and the foot traffic shrinks. Became a destination shop, and I'd figure most people who want ship models would shop in local seaside towns (Marblehead, Rockport, etc.)
 
As Alice B. Toklas said of Oakland, 'There's no there there.'

Much of the Greenway suffers from the same problem as does much of the Embarcadero. There is nothing on the harbor-side to draw people. Not only is the harbor side basically one building deep, but from Dewey Sq up to the Harbor garage, the only street front retail is at Rowe's Wharf, and the retail at Rowe's Wharf is hardly a destination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top