Rose Kennedy Greenway

Hmm, springing off of Rifleman here, they should sell off a parcel or two near the Aquarium to Chiafaro which he has to keep as a park, and maintenance responsibilities are left on him, in turn he can build his tower. Sounds like a good solution, but with people like Menino, Meade, and the jokes in the conservancy, can we really expect that? Our leaders suck.
 
The Greenway is defintely better than the Bridge. The problem is the cost of the project has become a money pit for the taxpayers. 22 billion ++ without an exit plan. The politicans are killing us......Now the Taxpayers have become responsible to fund an orgainization to help create the Rose Kennedy Greenway yearly maintaince. Nothing more than Political Bullshit if you ask me.


Common sense solutions
Sell the Greenway Parcels to corporate sponsors and dismantle the Greenway Conservancy.
Sell the majority of the Parcels to Congress & Aquarium Developers to help move forward with their projects.
This would eliminate yearly maintaince costs for the taxpayers.

Nah our politicans would rather create a GREENWAY TAX (CLASSIC)

Riff and the rest ---Pleasee!!! I'm by no means -- offended by the occasional use of a Anglo-Saxon animal-husbandryism or two when someone drops a hammer on a foot or screws-up something royally

I've been known to utter quite a few of them myself in private or to people working on a project with me

BUT -- this stuff gets sucked up and distributed globally through Google and repostings - let's try to keep the level of the discussion a bit higher level -- such as something we'd enjoy reading in a book rather than on an abandoned warehouse

The discussion is lively and active -- let's encourage that -- but let's keep the superfluous scatological, etc., references to a minimum
 
(excerpted)
Common sense solutions
Sell the Greenway Parcels to corporate sponsors and dismantle the Greenway Conservancy.
Sell the majority of the Parcels to Congress & Aquarium Developers to help move forward with their projects.
This would eliminate yearly maintaince costs for the taxpayers.

Disagree.

Despite tremendous failings, IMHO the public sector has a significantly better track record in maintaining public spaces than the private sector.

That is, if you enjoy using a park with your family in an active sense (i.e. picnic, playing, jogging, napping), as opposed a passive sense (i.e. looking at landscaping, sitting on a bench).

Without regulatory oversight, in my view Boston's privately owned/maintained public spaces seems to be operated as nothing more than a tool to improve the exclusive visitor experience of the users of the closest abutting commercial operation.

In other words, if it's a hotel, the abutting public space is designed to serve hotel guests. If it's an office building, the abutting public space regulates activities other than pristine landscaping that is appealing to business clientele, and workers eating lunch at lunchtime.

These may be exaggerated examples, but the imposition exists and can be felt by visitors. Great public spaces "feel" public, with no private agenda imposed upon them.

As for the Greenway Conservancy, I think it is a Boston phenomenon to have these highly paid "friends" groups exerting undue influence on the evolution of public spaces.
 
This sound like a disaster waiting to happen in that tunnel. It has already killed an innocent pedistran.

Not sure what a pedistran is, but if you are referring to Milena Del Valle, she was in a car.
 
Great public spaces "feel" public, with no private agenda imposed upon them.

Not sure I agree 100% on this.

My personal favorite 'public' space in the city is Hanover St in the North End. My least favorite is City Hall Plaza.

Two extreme examples, to be sure but still proof that privatized space can be great and purely public space can be terrible.
 
Not sure I agree 100% on this.

My personal favorite 'public' space in the city is Hanover St in the North End. My least favorite is City Hall Plaza.

Two extreme examples, to be sure but still proof that privatized space can be great and purely public space can be terrible.

My favorite Public Spaces in Boston:

Downtown -- Post Office Square park -- built by private interests

Waterfront - Roe's Wharf & Harbor Walk down toward Old Northern Ave bridge -- built by private interests

other parts of Boston proper -- Arnold Arboretum -- built by HAAAAAAAvd

if you don't count these - the oldest is still the best -- Boston Common / Public Garden -- complete with its "fat-cats" friends group!
 
Not sure I agree 100% on this.

My personal favorite 'public' space in the city is Hanover St in the North End. My least favorite is City Hall Plaza.

Two extreme examples, to be sure but still proof that privatized space can be great and purely public space can be terrible.

Not sure what you mean by Hanover Street. It's a street, which I suppose can be viewed as public space. Is it private with a public easement?

I won't get into (another) long discussion of Post Office Square. POS perfectly serves its commercial abutters, and really there is no reason to expect POS to serve any other purpose. That's not the case for MOST public spaces that have a variety of stakeholders and uses (including active recreational uses).

The Harborwalk and tidelands are highly regulated by DEP to protect the public interest in active and passive uses. These regulations governing public uses are part of an agreement with property owners that historically allowed private interests to fill Boston Harbor in order to create commercial wharves.
 
Last edited:
I was using public space to mean space that the public can freely congregate in. Not really a standard definition I guess.

I can't think of any day to day activity that City Hall Plaza serves the public better than P.O. Square.

Things like sports rallys, Circuses and the Scooper Bowl are better served due to space issues and the hard scape, but given the choice most people would rather spend time in P.O. Square, thus (in my mind) making it a better public space.
 
Statler, by any standard, City Hall Plaza is a failure.

My statement is based on looking at a variety of public spaces to formulate a reasonable observation.

In the past I've had a number of discussions with private property owners who, upon any suggestion of active recreational use (not passive or consumer use) raises an objection based on "public safety" or a seemingly inflated fear of litigation.

Perhaps Step #1 in addressing this issue would be figuring out a way for private owners to be insulated from personal injury lawyers.
 
Statler, by any standard, City Hall Plaza is a failure.

My statement is based on looking at a variety of public spaces to formulate a reasonable observation.

In the past I've had a number of discussions with private property owners who, upon any suggestion of active recreational use (not passive or consumer use) raises an objection based on "public safety" or a seemingly inflated fear of litigation.

Perhaps Step #1 in addressing this issue would be figuring out a way for private owners to be insulated from personal injury lawyers.


I think it's time to write-off the Rose Kennedy Greenway to the private sector as a BAD DEBT.
#1 Sell off 3 parcels to Congress St. development
#2 Sell off 3 parcels to Aquarium development
#3 Sell off the remaining parcels to the private sector.
There should be NIMBY committee to assist with ideas with the business sector to help create the best interest of the parks.

Public vs. Private.......
Rose Kennedy Greenway is completely different than Boston Common.
When you walk around the Boston Common you feel like you’re at a park. When I walk around the Greenway you just don't

You can compare good projects with bad in both public & private sectors. I think it depends on the people you work with.

What is really scary is the entire BIG DIG....
I just have trouble justifying when the taxpayers are responsible for a project that started out at a budget of 2.8 Billion dollar price tag which is now around 23 billion and counting? All tax dollars.

Now between the Greenway & Tunnels yearly maintenance has to be over 5-10 million a year. We need some responsible & accountable people to take over. It's time somebody cleans up this MESS.
 
Last edited:
CommonWealth Magazine said:
Greenway lowers its BID price

September 29, 2011

The Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy has entered the final stretch of its effort to launch a Business Improvement District to help fund its operations. The conservancy has made concessions to the Greenway district’s biggest landlords, and lowered the BID’s overall fundraising target. The fate of the proposed BID remains uncertain, though, thanks to the top-heavy nature of real estate values along the Greenway.

The Greenway Conservancy, the nonprofit that oversees the 13-acre Boston park system, started exploring the creation of a BID more than a year ago, when the state began scaling back its aid to the parks. State aid to the Greenway has dropped from $3 million in the 2010 budget cycle, to $2.2 million this year, to under $2 million for the current fiscal year. In response, conservancy officials sought voluntary contributions from commercial property owners along the Greenway, through a BID, to supplement the nonprofit’s budget.

The Greenway BID effort follows the recent creation of the Downtown Boston Business Improvement District. The Downtown BID, which runs in a triangle between South Station, Government Center, and the Common, raised $2.9 million from participating businesses.

The proposed Greenway BID, which would run along the parks, from Kneeland Street to the Bulfinch Triangle, initially set a fundraising goal of $2.7 million. That sum would have allowed the conservancy to boost its annual budget to $7.6 million, from $4.8 million in fiscal 2011.

After running into resistance from Greenway landlords, the conservancy lowered its ambitions. The BID’s current pro forma envisions a more modest $2 million annual contribution from property owners which, when combined with a lower annual contribution from the state and private fundraising, would put the conservancy’s annual budget in the $6 million range.

Conservancy officials are in the process of meeting with individual property owners along the Greenway, seeking final commitments for BID participation. Officials inside Boston City Hall are also expected to take an active role in soliciting property owners to participate in the BID. There are deep ties between the conservancy and City Hall, although the city of Boston has resisted putting money into the Greenway, which is owned by the state and sits atop a federal highway. The current director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Peter Meade, formerly chaired the conservancy’s board of directors, while the conservancy’s current chair, Georgia Murray, is the wife of former BRA director Mark Maloney.

The conservancy has tweaked its voluntary assessment formula, lowering the burden on all potential BID participants, but creating steeper discounts for the district’s biggest landlords. Property owners will be asked to contribute 90 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, up to $70 million of assessed value; 65 cents per $1,000 between $70 million and $140 million; and 30 cents for every $1,000 in value north of $140 million. Under the conservancy’s old BID formula, property owners were asked to kick in $1 for every $1,000 in assessed value up to $70 million, and 65 cents for every $1,000 thereafter.

The assessment revision represents an effort to win over the Greenway district’s larger landlords. Don Chiofaro’s International Place – the Greenway’s most valuable commercial property – would see its annual BID contribution drop from $475,000 to $275,000 under the new formula. Tishman Speyer’s proposed payment on 125 High St. would fall from $377,000 to $229,000.

Under the state BID statute, landlords representing 51 percent of the real estate value within a proposed BID must agree to join the effort; residential properties are commonly exempted.

The new, lower assessments recognize that the support of the Greenway’s biggest property owners will be critical to the success or failure of the BID. Unlike the Downtown BID, property values along the Greenway are extremely top-heavy; the participation, or defection, of a few major property owners could result in huge swings in the BID’s overall budget.

Well over 100 commercial properties fall within the boundaries of the proposed Greenway BID, but the top six property owners – Chiofaro, Equity Office, Tishman, the Fortis Property Group, Beacon Capital, and Fidelity Investments – control 59 percent of the commercial value along the Greenway. Their participation, along with the participation of other big landlords like Boston Properties, will make or break the Greenway BID effort. The participation of smaller landlords won’t get the conservancy to its fundraising goal.

Tishman and Equity are both run out of New York, and neither firm participates in the Downtown BID, where they both own buildings. Chiofaro, who is currently locked with the city in difficult redevelopment negotiations over his Harbor Garage project, has yet to publicly commit to joining the BID. Chiofaro, Tishman and Equity alone control 37 percent of the commercial real estate value along the Greenway. The conservancy’s $2 million BID target assumes an 80 percent participation rate.

PAUL MCMORROW

Main Page

(all links copied from the article)
 
Why would any landlords along the greenway pay extra taxes when the city & state is giving all our tax money to the seaport district.

Nothing more than extortion going on. This article is hilarious
 
After the batshitinsane arguments at the Copley Place meeting, I'm convinced that the number of parks should have been minimized from the get-go. Or at least some sort of "shadows-on-the-greenway-are-an-invalid-complaint" ruling. It's only going to be problems in the future here, one massive stretch for nearly every development in the area to stumble on.
 
Maybe they should have left small sections of the elevated parcels about the exit ramp locations as elevated parks. A Seatle Space Needle type development may work along there somewhere. A gondola type ride/connection/city view option between north and south station would be nice.
 
I think it's time to write-off the Rose Kennedy Greenway to the private sector as a BAD DEBT.
#1 Sell off 3 parcels to Congress St. development
#2 Sell off 3 parcels to Aquarium development
#3 Sell off the remaining parcels to the private sector.
....

Public vs. Private.......
Rose Kennedy Greenway is completely different than Boston Common.
When you walk around the Boston Common you feel like you’re at a park. When I walk around the Greenway you just don't

You can compare good projects with bad in both public & private sectors. I think it depends on the people you work with.

What is really scary is the entire BIG DIG....
I just have trouble justifying when the taxpayers are responsible for a project that started out at a budget of 2.8 Billion dollar price tag which is now around 23 billion and counting? All tax dollars.

.

Riff - I really enjoy your posts -- especially the ones where you don't seem to bother to see if anything is in the magazine, let alone the chamber before you pull the trigger

try this -- " "Public vs. Private.......
Rose Kennedy Greenway is completely different than Boston Common.
When you walk around the Boston Common you feel like you’re at a park. When I walk around the Greenway you just don't"

It might have something to do with surface to perimeter effects of the Common -- roughly square versus the thin Green Line of the Greenway

I get the same comparison when I'm driving on the Turnpike versus driving across the Burlington Mall parking lot behind Macys -- one feels kind of linear -- the other is basically square

As for the comparison is price -- you've got to depreciate the dollar (or inflate the price) and also you've got to allow for the project-creep driven in part by the desire for things such as:
skateboard parks under the new bridge, etc.
extensions of various public transits
expansion of the scope of the area being reconstructed to Albany Street and BU Medical

and miscellaneous other stuff -- bowing and scraping before the CLF


At the same time they blew the need to coordinate between Turnpike and BCEC to put in some BackBay exits / entrances and the Massport folks over the relocated Blue Line and the T over the failure to tunnel under D St.
 
you don't seem to bother to see if anything is in the magazine, let alone the chamber before you pull the trigger

Ha this got me laughing out loud. Gonna remember it in hopes I can use it on someone, sometime.
 
I mentioned a number of drawbacks to privately owned parks having a public easement as opposed to public parks:

1. Primary function of privately owned or managed park is usually aligned with the immediate commercial interest of the owner/abutter rather than serving a broader public interest.
2. Over-regulated due to fear of litigation and hyper-inflated safety concerns.
3. Passive and ornamental uses trump recreational / active uses.

Maybe someone can give me three examples of privately owned or managed parks with a public easement on which recreational / active uses are the predominate function of the park as opposed to ornamental landscaping and passive uses (e.g sitting and eating lunch).

I'm not suggesting parks like Post Office Square shouldn't exist. But I am suggesting that Riffleman's idea of privatizing the RKG would have negative consequences.

RKG will definitely improve in the future with increased density of users in the downtown and near proximity (Seaport).
 

Back
Top