Rose Kennedy Greenway

[Sicilian]

Well, I don't want to get too far on this [off-]topic, but there's a lot of room to grow between current SL-Waterfront and "bursting at the seams" (which may describe SL-Washington). Together, the SL1 and SL2 ridership combined approximate an above average bus route (but less than the 1,23,28,39,57,66,111 key routes). But they are advertised as "rapid transit." The cost of building the system was $624 million, and the Courthouse station alone was $110 million. Simply ridiculous. And a lot of people won't use it because it's inconvenient; requiring at least two transfers. And it's competing with two massive superhighways and loads of parking lots.

As for the RKG, it IS the surrounding neighborhoods which make me worry. The Financial District is legendary for its deadness. The planners of the CA/T stipulated that "75%" of the RKG must be "Green Space." That's a pretty arbitrary number, and ties everyone's hands. As a result, we get "Green Space" in the form of landscaped tunnel ramps and leftover bits of grass between curbs. Then there's the whole issue of the "Conservancy" and their continuing rip off of the public.

I appreciate your critique of the Silver Line; my problems stem mainly from it's inability to handle Seaport ridership projected as the Seaport evolves and there's no substantive dialog to address that.

As for the Financial District, I suppose one could ask whether an office district should be expected to be anything other than a ghost town outside of 9-5, M-F. That doesn't necessarily mean it's failing. Isn't Lower Manhattan (e.g. Wall Street) dead on weekends?

My view of the Greenway is that when the Seaport is fully built, it will offer an incredible walking experience from the waterfront to the North End. The water's edge parallel to Atlantic Ave (Rowes Wharf and beyond), has been subject to intense commercialization (i.e. limited public uses) and does not have nearly the potential as RKG as a pedestrian thoroughfare.

As for the ramps, during a walk through the Greenway I see them as expected bits of urban fabric. I like walking along the ramps, looking down into the tunnels, etc. I don't see a problem with that.

Lastly, not to defend the Conservancy, but no fraud has been exposed. The Conservancy may deserve ire due to a lack of transparency, but if we want a world-class public realm (think Millenium Park) we need a City committed to invest in it. I think Boston (and particularly the Herald) has an odd tendency to find a consultant paid $100k and tear that apart. Maybe Brennan doesn't deserve $250k? Fine, but IMO the Conservancy has been torn apart over petty issues. Millenium Park cost $475m of which the public paid $270m.

 

[TheRifleman]

Well, I don't want to get too far on this [off-]topic, but there's a lot of room to grow between current SL-Waterfront and "bursting at the seams" (which may describe SL-Washington). Together, the SL1 and SL2 ridership combined approximate an above average bus route (but less than the 1,23,28,39,57,66,111 key routes). But they are advertised as "rapid transit." The cost of building the system was $624 million, and the Courthouse station alone was $110 million. Simply ridiculous. And a lot of people won't use it because it's inconvenient; requiring at least two transfers. And it's competing with two massive superhighways and loads of parking lots.

As for the RKG, it IS the surrounding neighborhoods which make me worry. The Financial District is legendary for its deadness. The planners of the CA/T stipulated that "75%" of the RKG must be "Green Space." That's a pretty arbitrary number, and ties everyone's hands. As a result, we get "Green Space" in the form of landscaped tunnel ramps and leftover bits of grass between curbs. Then there's the whole issue of the "Conservancy" and their continuing rip off of the public.

The success of the Greenway will come from multiple scenarios.
***The surrounding businesses,
***MBTA Hardrail Locations (perfect location for accessible trans)
***NorthEnd (becoming the #1 hottest spot to live in the city)
***Aquarium (will be the destination spot for the Greenway)
***Growth of Trees & which will provide shade
***Location of multiple destination spot buildings
*** more Developments for residential which will add more foot traffic around the park.
***Also the way the Seaport is coming out.....I picture every business running back to the Financial district after their leases are up.


The failure to the Greenway
Greenway Conservancy (waste of taxpayers money) Outsource to landscaping company
BRA---Absurb Greenway study.....More control on private development.
And the rest of the city hacks that continue to get involved in this evolving project.

For the SILVERLINE: a EPIC FAILURE of planning by our officials: because nobody wants to ride a bus around a key part of a so called exciting area to be in the city.

 

[Matthew]

As for the Financial District, I suppose one could ask whether an office district should be expected to be anything other than a ghost town outside of 9-5, M-F. That doesn't necessarily mean it's failing. Isn't Lower Manhattan (e.g. Wall Street) dead on weekends?

Yes, actually, I do ask that and I think it's a sign of failure; not a fact to be accepted. Cities aren't theme parks. They aren't supposed to be divided up into neat little buckets and segregated by use. The Financial District is at the heart of Boston and the deadness there outside of 9-5 is a travesty and an enormous waste of scarce land resources. You're right that Lower Manhattan has historically been similar, but it's always been regarded as a problem that needs to be solved. It's complicated by the fact that the CBD in Manhattan has, over the past century, moved north to Midtown -- which, BTW, is always busy.

 

[czsz]

No, a financial district shouldn't be expected to be hopping at all times (though that would be nice). But at the same time, you can't acknowledge that the success of public space hinges on the surrounding neighborhood and then be okay with the deadness of that neighborhood. Something has to give -- either public space in this area wasn't the right move, or the neighborhood needs to be jazzed up,

 

[datadyne007]

The answer is simply mixed-use development and shops that don't close at 5pm.

 

[underground]

Click through this very board and you'll see that housing has been add downtown and continues to be added downtown. Change is already happening and it's just going to get quicker. ~2 years from now there'll be an extra 2000 or so people living downtown. As is, walking through downtown at night today is already wildly different than it was even 5 years ago.

 

[czsz]

Very little of that housing, if any, is directly near where the Greenway touches the Financial District. Why would someone living in the Kensington or Millennium Place go to the Greenway as opposed to the Common?

These open spaces are so close to one another that it really does matter whether there's substantial housing directly on or within 1-2 blocks of the Greenway.

I'd argue that retail/dining/nightlife along the edges is an even more necessary ingredient. Commonwealth Ave. isn't exactly hopping most times, either, and it's surrounded by residential -- but it can be forgiven for it since it's a relatively small and intimate space. The Greenway can't be left like this.

 

[Ron Newman]

I like walking along the ramps, looking down into the tunnels, etc. I don't see a problem with that.

I like walking through the ramp parcel across from Rowes Wharf, because they've done a good job of threading a narrow but lushly planted path through and between the ramps. I usually see other people there when I'm walking, too. The curviness of this path, in contrast to the straightness of everything else in the area, helps draw my interest.

But the other two ramp parcels, in their current condition, interrupt both the park and the urban fabric.

 

[czsz]

Just came upon this. Discuss relevance!

"Long strip parks...are frequently designed as if they were rolled out from a die stamper."

- Jacobs, Death and Life (1961) p 105

 

[Ron Newman]

Not relevant, since each block of the Greenway looks pretty different from its neighboring blocks.

 

[Sicilian]

In the grand scheme of things, I think the Greenway in no way could be suggested as a waste of space (except maybe the ramp parcels Ron mentioned).

This "strip" screams potential for nailing down Boston as the USA's most walkable city.

The issue is really what happens with the quality of development along abutting parcels. I'd guess everyone (maybe except GreenwayGuy) wants significantly more density, particularly on the western edges.

I'll also suggest something controversial here about density in Boston: A theory that the BRA thrives in the conflict focused on building height and density during the public process in order to leverage exactions unrelated to the project from the developer. The public dialog rarely focuses on the really critical elements of development -- the mix of uses intended by underlying zoning, the ground floors, the quality of the project (e.g. architecture, quality worthy of public investment that raised the site's value, etc.).

My theory here is prefaced on 15 years of observation of public process. 99% of public dialog is a fight over building height. The final approved height, after a staged battle between property owner and stakeholders, is usually a percentage of the original proposal -- maybe 75% of original proposal. The original proposed height was already negotiated by the BRA and developer prior to public process -- this is a fact. No project arrives at the community before the BRA has already sanctioned it. In other words, the outcome is often known well in advance of public process, yet the BRA doesn't suggest "The height is what it is, period. Let's move on to discuss ground floors and other elements of the project." Instead, the height/density battle is stoked, and the project is held hostage to a pre-determined outcome, while more and more exactions are piled on.

Conclusion: There is a path to improving the height/density dialog in Boston's public process by understanding why the conflict is amped up and allowed to determine 99% of the discourse.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

 

[underground]

Very little of that housing, if any, is directly near where the Greenway touches the Financial District. Why would someone living in the Kensington or Millennium Place go to the Greenway as opposed to the Common?

Who's to say that they'd go to the Common over the Greenway or even that going to one mutually excludes going to the other? They've got 365 days a year after all. They've got enough time to go to both.

I'd argue that retail/dining/nightlife along the edges is an even more necessary ingredient. Commonwealth Ave. isn't exactly hopping most times, either, and it's surrounded by residential -- but it can be forgiven for it since it's a relatively small and intimate space. The Greenway can't be left like this.

I think you're probably right on this point; the Greenway will eventually be more or an entertainment destination than a place people live. It'll be more Kudamm than Tiergarten. You can see that it's already moving that way with things like the Grainery project, the Times patio, and the International Place ground floor redesign.

 

[Matthew]

Not relevant, since each block of the Greenway looks pretty different from its neighboring blocks.

Well, if you look at the context of the quote, she was criticizing strip parks for not having any centering. Still, the RKG isn't quite like the SDR park, though it can be disorienting.

There's more choice quotes from that chapter I think. For example:

Conventionally, neighborhood parks or parklike open spaces are considered boons conferred on the deprived populations of cities. Let us turn this thought around, and consider city parks deprived places that need the boon of life and appreciation conferred on them.

In orthodox city planning, neighborhood Open Spaces are venerated in an amazingly uncritical fashion, much as savages venerate magical fetishes.

And that's how you end up with the "75% Green Space" requirement.

Philadelphia's Washington Square -- the one that became a pervert park -- affords an extreme contrast in this respect. Its rim is dominated by huge office buildings, and both this rim and its immediate hinterland lack any equivalent to the diversity of Rittenhouse Square -- services, restaurants, cultural facilities. [...] Therefore, Washington Square, of necessity, is a vacuum most of the day and evening. Into it came what usually fills city vacuums -- a form of blight.

Sounds familiar?

Neighborhood parks fail to substitute in any way for plentiful city diversity. Those that are successful never serve as barriers or interruptions to the intricate functioning of the city around them.

But American cities today, under the illusions that open land is an automatic good and that quantity is equivalent to quality, are instead frittering away money on parks, playgrounds and project land-oozes too large, too frequent, too perfunctory, too ill-located, and hence too dull or too inconvenient to be used.

The location of the RKG wasn't chosen because it was a natural gathering place, but rather because the planners of the Central Artery/Tunnel wanted something "green" to cover it.

 

[Shepard]

^ Good quotes. I think these lessons apply much more urgently to Government Center Plaza, though. The Greenway can benefit much more from lessons learned on great boulevards.

 

[TheRifleman]

Like it or not I believe the Greenway will be the future of Boston (the new innovation district)

Celebrities, Athletes and Stars will flock to this area of Boston and will buy in places like IC, Harbor Towers and also Rowes Wharf. Once the Restaurants, Cafes are in place.

**The economy will crash probably with-in the next 5 years or sooner. The area that will take a hit will be the Seaport. Its not like the planners ever thought of good infrastructure plan.... their just won't be anymore money to actually plan to upgrade the area for more growth.

Besides cleaning up a couple parcels this is all the Greenway needs
#1 Massive 50-100MIllion dollar upgrade to the New England Aquarium (theres your destination spot)
#2 more Outdoor restaurants/Cafes along the parcels
#3 More residential units
#4 Close off a couple of parcel ramps.
#5 North End (has become Priceless) Better character than the Backbay.
http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news151296.html
#6 Trees & Greenery will get more beautiful

This is how I see this evolving over the next 5 years.

Don't forget if Harbor & Congress garages get development........More & more foot-traffic

 

[JoeMail]

^^^^^I'm not sure about this.

The Seaport feels like the sea. I think this "ethos" will translate into "luxury." The ocean is a powerful draw.

The Greenway area, because of it's past as a slum and highway, was never designed to talk to the ocean. It was designed to take a lot of cars from one place to another -- and to spite its low-income residents.

Much of that heritage has translated to the Greenway, and now contributes to how terrible it is. It's right next to the ocean, but there's no sense that it is.

The Seaport is a blank slate, that is being written in an upper-middle-class accent. You know you're next to the ocean.

And by the way, the Seaport has every single thing that you say the Greenway lacks.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Thanks for the quotes Matthew. Amazing how relevant here words are 50 years later and yet some (most?) urban planners still don't get it.

 

[Ron Newman]

There was never a 'slum' along or next to the current Greenway.

A harbor is related to the ocean but isn't the same thing. If you want an 'ocean' feel in Boston, you go to Castle Island or L Street or Carson Beach, not to the Seaport.

 

[TheRifleman]

And by the way, the Seaport has every single thing that you say the Greenway lacks.

Restaurants & Cafes I'm assuming.......The Seaport is just not that Pedestrian friendly like the Greenway.

The Greenway is next to the heart of Downtown. You can walk to the common, the Backbay, Northend, Northstation, Theater District. The Accessbility is perfect for pretty much most of the areas that are walkable throughout the city.

Walking out of the Seaport District is just a long walk back to Financial District.

This is why the Greenway will be more desirable than the Seaport
Accessibility. Oh wait I can wait for the SILVERLINE BUS to drive me around town.

 

[HenryAlan]

You keep banging that drum Rifleman, but in fact the Silver Line is a pretty effective way to get to the Seaport. As for walkability, some sections are, some aren't. It tends to correlate with the ratio of buildings to parking lots. In time, as the parking lots become buildings, walkability will improve significantly. The seaport fails in comparison to the Greenway because the Greenway has buildings clustered along side.