Rose Kennedy Greenway

The median parcels (e.g. not Chinatown) that to my mind work - North End, Aquarium, and Dewey Square - engage pedestrians along the path that they actually want to walk... in most cases being across the Greenway. The failed Rowes Wharf parcels, on the other hand, try to engage pedestrians along the median of the Greenway, where nobody really wants or needs to walk... the Harborwalk is a much more unique and engaging stroll in the same direction (meanwhile, movement across the Greenway here is blocked by highway ramps).

In regards to all of these even "successful" median parcels, they have a long way to go before they can be called urban rooms. Take the North End parks. Only one half of the North End side actually has engaging ground floor uses while the other parts are decrepit or surface lots. The Haymarket side is in its current state an atrocity of curb cuts and blank walls. Nonetheless, I think these parks will get even better than they are, in the near term because of the public market proposals, and down the road from GC Garage redevelopment.
 
Solutions for the strip.

I only see a couple.

#1 Take out some cross-sections and connect to the park.
#2 More TREES & SHRUBS
#3 Harbor Garage development -Ground floor could open area up to the waterfront
#4 Congress Street Development-Ground floor would open up area with a right development could finish off that part of the Greenway near the North End.
#5 Hot girls

Ideas anybody.......I really don't have a clue how to save the IC- Rowes Wharf area of the park
 
Last edited:
Free market squirrels, who will realize that the vast swaths of grass are great investment opportunities for their acorns...
 
I'm seriously not trying to be a dick but my read of your posts seems to indicate a trend opposed to government anything. So, who pays for these trees and shrubs?

The Greenway has a budget right?.....Do you think that the budget might include some trees and shrubs being part of the budget or is it just used for Salaries, bonuses and partying?

No seriously does anybody have some ideas that can really help the strip?
 
The Greenway has a budget right?.....Do you think that the budget might include some trees and shrubs being part of the budget or is it just used for Salaries, bonuses and partying?

No seriously does anybody have some ideas that can really help the strip?

Making it more interactive. Like I mentioned before, include a small playground, some picnic tables, an enclosed court maybe for basketball or tennis (enclosed in case someone launches the ball into traffic).

Maybe MIT can bring some scientific contraption as a permanent attraction to the park.
 
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).

AMF -- It's really kinda simple:

NE -- people really live there as well as the tourists
Wharf -- no-one lives near enough -- so its either tourists (FH/QM) or people working in the FID taking a break
Chinatown -- people live there + tourists

But that said -- there are good reasons for why you don't want all of the seashore to look like Revah on a mid August Saturday afternoon. Good urbanity overall needs a mix of active places, quiet contemplative places and perhaps even places to contemplate from a distance -- this is not my idea -- this is pure Olmstead [OK he probably wouldn't say Reveah].

By Olmstead's criteria -- the Greenway is doing the right things the right way:
1) There are busy parts in the NE and also near to the Custom's House which are filled with "hot women" and lots of kids cooling off in the fountains
2) there are winding paths that are quiet and where you can walk or sit with no-one bothering you -- e.g. "Harbor Lights''
3) so-far the vistas's are not too prominent although there are views of the BHZ Bridge that are nice over the shrubs and flowers in the NE parks and there are some views of the FID buildings through the local plantings near to the Federal Reserve Bank

Really waiting to see the impact this summer of the Armenian Parkette
 
Last edited:
I'd love it if they took out the road from congress street bridge right up TO the north end. People coming from southie or FID would get on the tunnel stay in the right lane and get right off one exit up. Then you have a nice wide long park with fewer cross street interuptions. Some drivers coming the convention center may have to back track or get on at the entrance there rather than coming over and going by rowes wharf.

The park would be much more continuous and inviting. Then when you hopefully some day do some infill whether it be museums or commercial, you don't feel like you are in the middle of the street. you feel like its a nice block with a useful park, not median, near the building.
 
By Olmstead's criteria -- the Greenway is doing the right things the right way:
1) There are busy parts in the NE and also near to the Custom's House which are filled with "hot women" and lots of kids cooling off in the fountains
2) there are winding paths that are quiet and where you can walk or sit with no-one bothering you -- e.g. "Harbor Lights''
3) so-far the vistas's are not too prominent although there are views of the BHZ Bridge that are nice over the shrubs and flowers in the NE parks and there are some views of the FID buildings through the local plantings near to the Federal Reserve Bank

Sadly the sum of some parts don't always make a whole.
 
I'd love it if they took out the road from congress street bridge right up TO the north end. People coming from southie or FID would get on the tunnel stay in the right lane and get right off one exit up.

The trucks carrying explosive loads have to use the surface streets instead of the tunnel. Also, the surface street is the only significant north-south surface road through the area, except for Concress Street, and so the RKG surface steet serves an important function of collector-distributor road for the underground expressway, to collect and disperse the traffic.

If I had designed the surface street, I would have had it on one side of the park only, instead of the one-way couplet it is now straddling the park. But then again, I wouldn't have had a linear park at all, just a few individual parks seperated by housing, commercial and offices, and tied together by a surface light rail line along the corridor.
 
^ Is it necessary to "collect and distribute" traffic for the expressway? Why not let it bottle up on the surface a little to encourage transit use? Why are we planning the streets of Boston's medieval core like a Houston interchange?

Also, what the hell do trucks carrying explosive loads need to roam through downtown Boston for anyway?
 
Looking at a map, it's very clear that, without changing any of the on/off ramps, Surface/Purchase could easily be made two-way and Atlantic/Cross subsumed into the park or for development all the way from Summer Street to beyond the North End Parks. That's because all the on/off ramps on the Atlantic/Cross side feed into cross streets that would be kept anyway.

This also means they can eliminate all the unnecessary cross-street interruptions as at Pearl and High streets.

They could very easily experiment with this setup on weekends.
 
^ Is it necessary to "collect and distribute" traffic for the expressway? Why not let it bottle up on the surface a little to encourage transit use? Why are we planning the streets of Boston's medieval core like a Houston interchange?

I could be wrong but I think the thinking isn't "If we let traffic build up, people will take the T" but rather "If we let traffic build up, people will move to someplace where there is less traffic"
Or more cynically, "If we let traffic build up, people won't vote for me (or my party) in the next election"
 
Looking at a map, it's very clear that, without changing any of the on/off ramps, Surface/Purchase could easily be made two-way and Atlantic/Cross subsumed into the park or for development all the way from Summer Street to beyond the North End Parks. That's because all the on/off ramps on the Atlantic/Cross side feed into cross streets that would be kept anyway.

This also means they can eliminate all the unnecessary cross-street interruptions as at Pearl and High streets.

They could very easily experiment with this setup on weekends.

Shep and the others with similar views --take a walk from N to S stations -- its a quite long and mostly pleasant walk -- aside from someone planning curling in the winter or a golf driving range the cross streets are no impediment to walking

If you walk from the Common to the Pru along Comm Ave there are just as many street crossings and indeed the central path doesn't really provide legal street crossings

Think of the Greenway as a hybrid between a Comm Ave Mall part of the way with the North End, Quincy Market and Chinatown discrete Parks along the way. What is needed is just development on the periphery which not just accommodates the Greenway - but highlights its connection and celebrates it

Throw in a few Palms at International Place on the Greenway and in 10 or so years we can see how it worked out -- but please no big structures in the middle -- the old city structure in the area has changed -- let's learn to benefit from it
 
I could be wrong but I think the thinking isn't "If we let traffic build up, people will take the T" but rather "If we let traffic build up, people will move to someplace where there is less traffic"
Or more cynically, "If we let traffic build up, people won't vote for me (or my party) in the next election"

Not to mention stop and go traffic, idling, etc is horrible on air quality. I live in a downtown neighborhood, don't care about cars, and take the T or walks everywhere, but me and my lungs are more than happy that cars move a lot more quickly around the city thanks to the tunnel and the surface roads.
 
I could be wrong but I think the thinking isn't "If we let traffic build up, people will take the T" but rather "If we let traffic build up, people will move to someplace where there is less traffic"
Or more cynically, "If we let traffic build up, people won't vote for me (or my party) in the next election"

This is the mentality that built the Central Artery in the first place (oh noes, people are going to move to more "modern" cities than Boston if we don't demolish half of downtown to build this freeway and get traffic moving). Cities that made other choices (see Vancouver) weren't worse off. Road construction/facilitation of traffic flow incentivizes auto use. Traffic will build up eventually. The only question is whether you want it to be now or in the future, and if you want it to involve relatively few cars or a ton. Underground, your lungs may be better off now because of CA/T, but that won't necessarily always be the case. In the meantime, we are laboring under the impression that we don't have to invest as heavily in transit as we will when the boondoggle comes.

I've said it before and will say it again: kill the ramps; allow for access points to the tunnel only at the beginning and the end. Is there really a justifiable reason we need to dump cars out at Faneuil Hall? When you arrive downtown there should be no further excuse needed to bring your car to its final destination unless you're prepared to deal with the inconveniences of doing so. People deal with it in Manhattan, in London, and Paris, they can deal with it in Boston.
 
Just for the record, I agree with you 100% but that doesn't mean the attitude isn't still prevalent. Our own Kahta is living proof of that.
 
Underground, your lungs may be better off now because of CA/T, but that won't necessarily always be the case. In the meantime, we are laboring under the impression that we don't have to invest as heavily in transit as we will when the boondoggle comes.

Oh, yeah, totally. But the solution isn't either/or. Upgrading the T while letting cars idle in traffic isn't a good solution either. You've gotta do both. Unfortunately Boston/MA can't right now, but we're in a more than slightly unique situation after having blown through a record amount of money recently.
 
Boston.com - April 27 2012
Developers make pitches for parcel near Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway
By Jeremy C. Fox, Town Correspondent

With four proposals on the table for the empty lot between the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway and Blackstone Street, developers are seeking support from the citizens’ advisory committee that will recommend one plan to the state Department of Transportation.

Public presentations began Wednesday night in the North End, with two developers sharing very different visions for Greenway Parcel 9, adjacent to the weekly Haymarket produce market. They will continue at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, May 1, at the Mariner’s House in North Square.

While the presentations are open to public comment and questions, financial details of the plans will not be discussed at this stage.

First up were the planners of the Boston Museum, a facility originally intended for Parcel 12, the ramp parcel that lies catty-corner to Parcel 9 to the southeast. That scheme was abandoned in 2008 due to the expense of building over ramps to the Central Artery Tunnel.

Both the YMCA of Greater Boston and planners for a New Center for Arts and Culture later gave up plans to build on ramp parcels due to the cost.

The Boston Museum, a nonprofit group led by developer Frank Keefe, submitted a plan for Parcel 9 in a 2009 round of proposals, but MassDOT rejected all proposals at that time.

At Wednesday's meeting, Keefe proclaimed the site, right on the Freedom Trail, “the best in the country.”

The new plan calls for a 100,000-square-foot building designed by Cambridge Seven Associates, with brick on the Blackstone Street side transitioning into glass facing the Greenway.

The building would step up from one 18-foot story at the lot’s narrow Hanover Street tip to three stories and a 50-foot height about one-third of the way from Hanover to North Street. It would rise to four stories and a 66-foot height at the halfway point, with an 82-foot fifth story on the final third of its length.

It would include exhibits on Boston’s history and development in five categories: growth, people, politics, sports, and innovation.

Keefe said the museum would include a variety of temporary exhibitions, with some possibly spearheaded by city residents and others brought there through partnerships with such institutions as the MIT Museum, Facing History & Ourselves, and the Sports Museum of New England.

The exhibits would cycle through with enough frequency to give visitors a reason to come back regularly, he said.

The museum would feature free educational programs and free admission to all Boston Public Schools students. For others, tickets would cost around $11.

The ground floor would contain a lobby, gift shop, café, and restrooms, but the bulk of that space would be set aside as a community marketplace for use by Haymarket pushcart vendors, other vendors, or the city. Glass garage doors would open the first floor up to Blackstone Street, and Haymarket vendors would only be asked to pay operating costs for the space, he said.

“The pushcart vendors, we embrace them,” Keefe said. “They can have the entire ground floor. If they want to be open more than two days a week, they want to be open seven days a week, they can.”

The relationship with the vendors, he said, would be complementary, with the 180-year-old Haymarket serving as a “living exhibit” of the city’s history.

Keefe stressed that unlike some other local museums that received donated land or public subsidies for their sites, and in contrast to its initial proposal calling for a $40 million contribution from the state, the current plan would be fully paid for through the museum’s fund-raising efforts.

“We’re not asking for any subsidies,” Keefe said. “We’ll pay fair market value.”

He said successful recent fundraising efforts by the Peabody Essex Museum, Museum of Fine Arts, the Gardner Museum, the Institute of Contemporary Art, and others showed that even in a down economy it is possible to raise money for a cultural institution.

He touted the fund-raising experience of museum board members such as Linda Whitlock, who he said raised $109 million for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston, and Churchill G. Franklin, who he said raised $400 million for Middlebury College.

Keefe predicted that project would take about a year to complete the city’s approval process. Simultaneously, the developers would work toward a finished design, which would take about 18 months. Construction would begin in around three years, with 75 percent of the necessary funds raised, and be completed in five years.

The museum would create 1,200 jobs and bring $86 million more to the regional economy, he predicted.

The night’s other presenter, Philip DeNormandie, owns 10 properties in the Blackstone Block adjacent to Parcel 9 and also submitted a proposal for developing the site in 2009.

He returned for this round with Edward G. Nardi, Cresset Group founder and principal, and with architect Sy Mintz, who, like DeNormandie, has made his office in the Blackstone Block for three decades and who worked with architects from Utile Inc. in designing the Blackstone Market proposal.

The 112,000-square-foot market building would have a small, one-story section about 15 1/2 feet in height at Hanover Street rising quickly to two stories and 30 1/2 feet and then to a seven-story, 83-foot section in its final third. The two-story section, though, would have a small greenhouse near the Hanover Street tip.

It would have a similar first-floor layout to the museum, with the majority of the space — about 18,000-20,000 square feet — given over to market activities. But the space would be a high-end, professionally managed market buying its meat, poultry, bread, and dairy products from local growers and bakers.

Faced with questions about how this would sit alongside both Haymarket and a planned public market for the adjacent parcel across Hanover Street, DeNormandie said it would be a different kind of store selling distinctive products. He said his team would work with the public market managers and the pushcart vendors to ensure the right mix.

“I can guarantee you, there’s no conflict in these things,” DeNormandie said. “They really complement each other, and even when you take all of the district together, it isn’t going to be big enough to meet all of the needs of the farmers and of the consumers.”

Nardi stressed that the developers want to keep Haymarket as it is today on Blackstone Street. They plan to improve conditions in the market, he said, by working with the city and the state to flatten the street, provide utilities and storage for the vendors, and create an effective trash and recycling center that would serve Haymarket, the restaurants, and the residential tenants.

“The pushcart vendors … provide the energy and really the long history here,” Nardi said. “We’re not here to gentrify their use; we’re not here to relocate their use. We want to complement their use.”

The second floor would be divided into restaurant spaces, probably three, each with its own first-floor entry and second-floor outdoor seating area. Above the restaurants would be a green roof and greenhouse that would serve as an urban agricultural center, offering schoolchildren a chance to learn about farming in the city.

Produce from the roof would be sold in the market downstairs and to nearby restaurants.

The upper five floors at the North Street end would be rental housing, with five 525-square-foot studio apartments, 30 one-bedroom apartments of 775 square feet, and 15 two-bedroom apartments of 1,050 square feet.

As required by Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s inclusionary housing policy, seven units would be affordable, priced at 70 percent of area median income.

Mintz stressed that the building was designed to meet the guidelines set by the advisory committee, with an emphasis on the market function.

“We see this as the market building that you’ve asked for,” Mintz said. “We see the housing as a piece of it, but not the dominant piece.”

There would be no parking designated for tenants, but the developers believe that little will be necessary for downtown tenants, and that those who do need parking can find it for a fee in nearby garages.

The project would have a shorter timeline than the museum proposal, with construction completed in less than three years and full occupancy predicted within 40 months.

By the developers’ estimates, the Blackstone Market would create approximately 125 temporary construction jobs and then about 400 restaurant jobs, 100 more in the market space, and a few management and valet positions.
 

Back
Top