Rose Kennedy Greenway

KentXie said:
Very VERY generalization and bias view of the "other version of propaganda." Let me make it more specific for you.

1. They are protesting because of what they see as wasteful government spending and wall street greed.
2. They come from all walks of life including older members who lost their 401k, students unable to find a job because of the recession even though they have a degree, and even 1 percenters who find the income inequality unacceptable.
3. They camp out to show that this protest is legitimate, not one where people just protest some of the time and that's it. Most people that scoffed at the protest stated that the protesters would leave as soon as it gets cold. The protesters are proving them wrong.
4. Most of the protesters are demanding change. Only a minority want Anarchy and most of them will quickly change their mind if anarchy existed.
Click to expand...

I agree with all your points here. My "propaganda" was simplified just to demonstrate the illogic of those who suggest the protesters are there for any other purpose that peaceable assembly.
 
Lurker said:
You realize that the 1% isn't primarily comprised of financial services people right? I guess you're going to swear off medical professionals and all sorts of specialists in solidarity with your fellow asshats.

-Lurker proud self made member of the 1%, BITCHES
Click to expand...

When I reprimanded Wighlander, I was really hoping we could stay away from the political. This board is about architecture, planning, and urban space. But it is also (to the credit of the admins) a space for free speech. To borrow from a great movie line, right now, the wind blows from the political.

So I'll weigh in, if only briefly. The OWS folks made a mistake, in my opinion, to use the 1%/99% dichotomy as a rallying cry. I'm not a member of the 1%, but I don't particularly subscribe to the idea of making reasonable opposition to economic policy based upon an us against them dynamic. If we move past this rhetorical point, there's quite a bit to recommend in the statement being made by the Occupy Movement. Money doesn't belong in politics, corporations probably shouldn't have the same (or indeed more) rights than individuals, taxation rates should be more equitable. These are concrete goals articulated by the protests, and we shouldn't be distracted by the rallying cry.

Lurker said:
Well the bike lanes connecting North and South Station with spokes through downtown are quite a nice development. But yes, it is sad that the biggest news and development concerning "a world class 'greenway'" in the heart of the city is a bunch of cranky political people camping out.
Click to expand...

We can make lemonaide from this.

  1. There are significant issues regarding public space that are proper subjects for this forum. In a society dedicated to the notion that people can and should petition the government for redress of grievances, what public forum should be available for this purpose? What design principles might make the most sense for providing an appropriate space for assembly and free speech protest?
  2. How does the power of wealth impact development in our city? Many have expressed frustration by the corrupted approval process. Does Boston suffer because development is for the wealthy and not for the public citizenry?
 
How about this for a compromise.

We can use this thread to discuss how the OWS camp affects the Greenway (or vise-a-versa) but keep general discussion about OWS in the OWS thread.

Fair?
 
^^ Ok, well now this will probably get moved, but in my view, the bald claim that "money doesn't belong in politics" is more radical than the 1%/99% rallying cry. Money in politics is/was originally intended to give challengers a fighting chance against incumbents, i.e. to grease the wheels of democracy.

The point of the "us vs them" rhetoric is not that wealth in America is unjustifiable per se, but that 1) those currently on top got there illegitimately - namely, by buying influence in DC and screwing the rest of us over in the process (referring specifically to Wall St), and that 2) in general, huge disparities of income make it MUCH easier to distort the proper functioning of democracy since so-called "public" policy becomes fully shaped by a tiny minority of moneyed interests (and not just financial services)
 
To Henry's last point, the RKG should have at least one significant parcel dedicated to truly public uses including:

1. Impromptu theater, art, music performance
2. Impromptu recreational sports (frisbee, football toss, etc.)
3. Impromptu civic action
4. Impromptu picnics or gatherings of over 20 people (maybe 10, I forget).

As far as I have looked into it, NONE of the above are permitted uses on the RKG. All of the above uses are permitted in city parks I grew up in, as well as those in most Boston suburbs.

I suggested long before OWS that these types of uses were prohibited because the predominate purpose of RKG parcels was to serve (e.g. maximize profit) for commercial abutters, predominately corporate office/hotel users. Public uses (and users) can be distasteful to commercial users.

Liability is not an issue here. The City absolves the Conservancy of liability from injury, etc.

Should the RKG (and society more generally) be scrubbed of uses that could be considered "troublesome" or "unsightly?"
 
Sicilian - this coincides with the emerging trend of policing on broken window theory. The theory actually does seem to work especially in more dillapedated neighborhoods (see: urban farming, for example), but ever since policing in general has been reoriented to this approach, virtually ANYthing that is distatsteful to middle class sensibilities, virtually anywhere, can be suppressed based on seeing it as an inducement to disorder and ultimately crime. In other words: the public can't be trusted; only in aesthetics can we trust. Restrictions on park use are part and parcel of this.
 
This also ties in with the "Good Grit" vs Bad Grit" discussion that comes up on the board occasionally. I don't think anyone has ever really been able to draw a good line between the two.
 
I would posit the theory here (unproven) that the Broken Windows policy works because no one benefits from a broken window, but the Scrubbed Park policy doesn't work because it is a catalyst for political unrest and crime.

In other words, if you banish skateboarders from plazas instead of figuring out how they might be able to be accommodated in some type of skate park (without knee-jerk labeling that as "appeasement") more problems occur as a result. Consider that they just want to skateboard -- they don't have the intent to damage marble steps. If you banish them, they find somewhere else to skateboard -- the problem is simply swept under the rug.

To take it a step further, I'd suggest that the best, broadest and possibly most economical use of a park is one where organic opportunities for use are allowed. Consider a city that experimented by creating a downtown park that welcomed busking without permits (street performers, music, art sales, etc), secured only by normal police details -- no Conservancy regulatory framework.

I'd bet such a city would benefit from tourism and a healthy sense of community, more so than one that banished unseemly uses.

SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION: You only need to look at the predominate motivation of the users of a public space to determine whether they are intent on A) committing a crime, or B) there is an unseemly aspect of their use of public space that is simply an unintended consequence of the primary use. These two motivations are easily distinguished, yet regulators prohibit users with both motivations.
 
The problem lies in where do you draw the line between 'unseemly' and 'unhealthy'?

It seems like it would be obvious ...but most of the time it's not.
 
^statler
I added my "scientific conclusion" while you were posting. I think for most "unseemly" uses including protesting and frisbee, the primary motivation of the user is a positive one. Is that undeniable?
 
Sure.
But when you look at the OWS (which for the record, I support) I think the city can make a legitimate claim to dismantling the camp (periodically & temporarily) based on health and safety concerns of the occupiers, rather than simply for aesthetic reasons.

This, of course, would be very disruptive to the camp and could easily been seen as a form of harassment.

There are no real simple answers. (Well, there are, but none that are any good.)
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenw

statler said:
Sure.
But when you look at the OWS (which for the record, I support) I think the city can make a legitimate claim to dismantling the camp (periodically & temporarily) based on health and safety concerns of the occupiers, rather than simply for aesthetic reasons.

This, of course, would be very disruptive to the camp and could easily been seen as a form of harassment.

There are no real simple answers. (Well, there are, but none that are any good.)
Click to expand...

You would support OWS. These morons should be camping out at Boston city hall or beacon hill. The politicians make the rules and laws. The taxpayers spend money on agencies called the FBI and the SEC to hold Wall street bankers and executives accountable both have looked the other way. We elect a president to hold these people accountable for 2years what does he do supports the OWS. Talk about no accountability.

I said in my past posts of complaining about the greenway is not living up to it's potential. Well not only do we have failed miserably in the downtown area the mayor is promoting the protests based on favors back n forth from Deval Patrick since he bailed out Fallon fan pier project. The Obama admin is trying to promote chaos because they want more stimulus money from the rich. Talk about a great leader.

People on the greenway complaining about no jobs. Menino complaining about shadows to one developer from creating jobs. It doesn't make sense


The 99percent need to educate themselves.
 
NO......sorry that the greenway has become the battle ground for political bullshit but that is the reality.


I can't wait till bums start to occupy the Greenway with barrels of fire. We are getting close to that direction.

Thank you greenway conservancy for being such a fucking waste of the taxpayers money
 
shmessy said:
People like you are owned lock-stock-and barrel by the 1% - - you pay their exhorbitant fees, give them "business" tax deductions for "entertainment and dining expense" at sporting events, concerts etc.

Amazing that you've been trained like a little poodle to perform their favorite tricks when they order you to and to defend their right to further the raping of the middle class in this country.

As a 5-percenter, I'm actually appreciative of you're magnanimous gesture.

Thank you, Whighlander.
Click to expand...

Shmesssssss -- do you also believe that if it rains today that it will tomorrow

You have the traditional static view of economies -- a fixed size pie with no chance for somebody to move up without tossing someone eles under the bus

The reality has been exactly the opposite over periods of time ranging from a few years to generations the individuals who make up the 25%, 10%, 5% yes even the 1% of either income or assetts come and go -- e.g. the folks who became GGoogleionaies, Dellionares, MSofiononares -- most were typical middle class before the event. Many of the big money members of sports teams were often from poorer families than most of the fans who watch them. It also works the other way -- there are plenty of people who can look back at an ilustrious ancestor (who might even have been a 1%er) who are now just middle class with some portraits or may even be well down in the lower 50% due to bad decisions or just what happpened to them or their paraents

As a very dynamic metro area --a key cog in the Knowledge Economy -- Boston has a lot of new incomes and wealth -- much of which came from somewhere else -- and in many cases from overseas

Roll the callendar back to the early 1950's and most of the money was remnants of old money -- most of buildings also dated from an earlier period -- indeed for a couple of decades the city-propoper was in stasis -- meanwhile people were creating a new world out on Rt-128

An so it goes -- today the investment is back into Cambridge and Boston -- less-so he suburbs
 
HenryAlan said:
Regarding broken windows and crime, there is a growing body of evidence that the theory is unsound:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Criticism_of_the_theory
Click to expand...

I disagree from years of experience as a landlord and watching my block gentrify over 30 years. The more a place looks like a shithole the less people care about doing additional damage or littering. You have no problem spitting into a filthy trash filled gutter, but sure as Hell have a problem spitting on your mother's sparkling clean floor right?
 
Lurker said:
I disagree from years of experience as a landlord and watching my block gentrify over 30 years. The more a place looks like a shithole the less people care about doing additional damage or littering. You have no problem spitting into a filthy trash filled gutter, but sure as Hell have a problem spitting on your mother's sparkling clean floor right?
Click to expand...

Or just compare places that are lax with garbage and stuff with places that arent.

IE: Boston vs NYC.

NYC sidewalks already look like dumpsters. Whats another cup going to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top