Rose Kennedy Greenway

itchy said:
True.

Is there any "law" or other written, objective document that bears this rule, or is it just common knowledge that if you try to build anything "distracting" near the Greenway, the BRA will reject your application and/or Fat Tommy will come after you?

I know we've just had a cathartic session about keeping posts strictly about architecture, but for the good of architecture around the Greenway, does this not far exceed any powers Menino has? I mean, the Supreme Court has difficulties with whether cities can landmark buildings; no mayor or city council has anything approaching the power to tell developers exactly what their buildings can look like, and that on an ad hoc basis. If there were a developer with cajones (Chiofaro?) who proposed a building that meets zoning requirements but is "distracting" from the Greenway, he'd probably swab the decks with Menino/the BRA in court. I for one would love to see City Hall's mafia-like handling of real estate take one on the chin.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any written policy regarding this, but Kairos Shen has been quoted, and I'm paraphrasing from my recollection right now so please correct me if i'm wrong, as saying that the original proposal for the dainty dot site was too tall and "iconic" and would take away from what the focus of the greenway should be, the park itself.

With regards to controlling how people build, you're right that the court doesn't like govt. telling people what their buildings should look like. Frankly that's why the govt. often enacts very restrictive zoning restrictions or overlay districts, to subject properties to govt. oversight through the special permitting and variance processes. As long as the govt. regulations reasonably relate to "important government interests" (historical preservation, safety, etc.) the govt. can basically do this, even when it appears it is doing so for other reasons. And while the court may have problems with municipalities making "historical designations", you'd be surprised at the deference the court gives them with regards to what constitutes "important government interests" in other situations.
 
Last edited:
The Greenway concept is completely opposite to what it should have been. It should be TURNED INSIDE OUT!

Instead of the park in the middle (where virtually no one ventures), the surface road should be in the middle, and they should have greatly widened the sidewalks on both sides and created park necklaces with outdoor cafes, etc. AROUND the road.

It works in baseball to "hit 'em where they ain't" but it doesn't work in urban planning. They should have ACCOMODATED human walking patterns, not try to artificially (and unsuccessfully) transform them.

It should have been two beautiful serpentine like parks/sidewalk plazas surrounding the surface road with artistic footbridges connecting the two parks every block or so.
 
Last edited:
^^^^

Harbor Garage development is the key for the Greenway to become more vibrant.

If we get a new upgraded Aquarium which ends up becoming a destination spot for Boston then the Greenway might live up to its HYPE.
 
The Aquarium is already packed. It needs to be renovated/rebuilt/whatever, but that's not going to get anymore people down there seeing as how it's already drawing a ton. In any case, that part of the Greenway, along with the NE Parks, is the one stretch that already more or less works. It's everything to the south (excluding the fine Chinatown Park) that needs a rethink.
 
shmessy said:
The Greenway concept is completely opposite to what it should have been. It should be TURNED INSIDE OUT!

Instead of the park in the middle (where virtually no one ventures), the surface road should be in the middle, and they should have greatly widened the sidewalks on both sides and created park necklaces with outdoor cafes, etc. AROUND the road.

It works in baseball to "hit 'em where they ain't" but it doesn't work in urban planning. They should have ACCOMODATED human walking patterns, not try to artificially (and unsuccessfully) transform them.

It should have been two beautiful serpentine like parks/sidewalk plazas surrounding the surface road with artistic footbridges connecting the two parks every block or so.
Click to expand...

That never even crossed my mind but I couldn't agree more. Would have been amazing.

How would they have handle the on and off ramps though? Would this design have necessitated only ramp at either end (which I would have been fine with)?
 
ok, I was bored, so decided to throw together an idea of reducing the surface roads around the greenway. Its not an end all be all design, but I think it solves alot of near term problems. I still think more of it should be developed into buildings and such, but this is the first step I thought of. Take a look and tear my ideas apart.

http://g.co/maps/vecy9
 
KentXie said:
I'm still shock that none of these parcels however contain a single small playground. They should design one in the style of capture the flag with two forts (for the longer ones).
Click to expand...

I agree with you but they're incredibly expensive to insure. Someone's precious little Skippy gets dirty having fun and suddenly it's a lawsuit.
 
Walked the Greenway last monday it was a very beautiful day.

I have to admit.....The North End part of the Greenway, I could not believe how hot the women were laying out on the grass getting some sun.......

No matter how the Greenway turns out the North End part is a success.
 
TheRifleman said:
Walked the Greenway last monday it was a very beautiful day.

I have to admit.....The North End part of the Greenway, I could not believe how hot the women were laying out on the grass getting some sun.......

No matter how the Greenway turns out the North End part is a success.
Click to expand...

Hot women always make poor urban planning look better
 
Boston in the spring time has gorgeous women walking around everywhere. Helps that there's still school in session and they've been held back all winter so they gonna flaunt it. Newbury was unreal on Saturday.
 
The North End Park parcel is really nice with or without hot women.

The views are merely an added bonus.

The flip side is that even hot women can't save the rest of the parcels (except for the Chinatown parcel, which I also like.)
 
Everyone seems to agree that NE Parks work the best on the Greenway. But why is that? I'm curious to hear people's thoughts.
My list:
1. Thoughtful design (grade separation from Atlantic Ave, expansive lawn designed with Pine & Swallow soil to handle high traffic, kid-friendly fountain).
2. Quality construction - the hardscape, lawns, fountain, etc. are virtually flawless.
3. The fact that the park sits between Quincy Market (tourist attraction) and the North End (tourist attraction).
4. Footprint. The NE Parks seem to be a little wider than the other parcels (i.e., less like a median).
 
I'll theorize that they work in large part because they are inward facing parks, which makes them feel more protected from the abutting traffic. To me they seem like sunnier more family/college friendly versions of post office sq.
 
A good park should basically be an outdoor room. The North End Park achives this goal better than any other parcel on the Greenway.
 
I think it's a combination of those parcels being inward facing and what they are situated between. They are designed well enough that they grab people as they travel between the North End and Faneuil.
 
And yet two of their four edges are totally unenclosed -- the ramp parcels.
 
It's just a simple design + people = success equation. The parks have something people want to do and the people around them to do them. That's more or less the case as you move from the North End down towards Rowes, and then the designs get blander and there aren't nearly the numbers of people until you get to Chinatown and it's better again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top