Rose Kennedy Greenway

HenryAlan said:
I also disagree with Shephard. I recently took out of town visitors on a tour of the Greenway, along with a few side excursions to nearby points of interest. They had both been to Boston many times, but never this part of Boston, and they were completely entranced. And to be honest, so was I, which is generally what happens every time I walk it, despite having already had a few such epiphanies. The park is lush, beautiful, and teaming with use. There is some untapped potential, certainly, especially along some of the parcels you mentioned, but it really does connect some interesting parts of the city, and the combination of gardens and art installations makes for a thoroughly enjoyable experience. I have to think that structures or other elements intended to break the park in to multiple focused areas would greatly lessen the likelihood of anybody making the linear trip, with people instead simply crossing through one of the plazas en route to somewhere else.
Click to expand...

HenryAlan -- Exactly so

The best near-term solution is to build lightweight pedestrian ramp / bridges over the ramp parcels interconnecting them with the formal parks -- these parcels could be planted with some nice but not ostentatious gardens and perhaps some sculptural elements. Such a project could be done one-by-one by the Conservancy with some private fund raising similar to the Armenian parcel

An added benefit of the pedestrian ramps would be an elevated viewpoint in the midst of the Greenway
 
And because good is so hard to get, great becomes impossible.
 
Henry - see CSTH's post which I think is a great explanation for how and where vision was lacking, even if some parts ended up successful.

To build on it:

Here's the question that was asked. What should replace an ugly road that rips through downtown?
Here's the way that question was answered. A nicer road, obviously. One that's better landscaped, more park-like.

Some of you may remember the Museum of Science's Big Dig exhibit before and during construction. The centerpiece was a 3D-rendered (quite nifty at the time) animation of how the Greenway would look - from the perspective of a car's windshield. Yes, a peaceful, bucolic drive to contrast with that hardscrabble congested artery that everyone hated.

So it was going to stay a road. But it wasn't just a road. It was a 6-lane road. A collector-distributor highway "SURFACE ROAD" as the overscaled street signs so prominently signal. But it wasn't just that. It was also La Rambla! Oh, and not just that. It was also a horticultural showcase! Oh, and not just that. It was Boston's answer to the National Mall, a collection of not-for-profit cultural institutions! (How will they afford to build over complicated ramp parcels? *Shrug*)

In the early 2000s when the Globe came out with a long article on inspirational great streets from other cities, and they took La Rambla as a model, I knew the visioning was all off. La Rambla is a natural directional ramble, from the heart of Barcelona, past the Latin Quarter and smack into the waterfront. The Greenway is a non-directional corridor, parallel to the waterfront but mostly without the harbor view. (Like it or hate it, Boston's real La Rambla has for the past several decades been the South Market side of Quincy Market... I'll just leave that there for now.)

So they wanted to GIVE a raison d'etre to a corridor that nobody would naturally walk. They had to fill it with "things and stuff." But "things and stuff" isn't really that important, and moving traffic IS important, so we can see how that worked out.

But let's be clear about something. Of course some "things and stuff" work spectacularly. The carousel, for example. But it's not a great part of the Greenway corridor. Actually, it's a great part of the Quincy Market --> Long Wharf corridor. A great moment along that natural ramble. You see? The natural movement for the area that replaced the elevated artery is one of being traversed - not strolled. So yes, Henry, there's enough stuff now to see that you CAN stroll it, if you wish (and if you don't care about overscaled 25 foot high traffic signals, interstate highway signage and spaghetti ramps)... but still, was making it a corridor to stroll really a worthy goal?

And let's say, for a second, that we really needed all those ramps, and that nothing could easily be built on those ramps, and that nothing could easily be built anywhere over the tunnel for that matter. Even in that case, nobody looked around and said - hmmm, six lanes of surface traffic... what about just four lanes of traffic and a heritage trolley? A GLX to tie into the seaport? Hell, even some dedicated bus lanes to make NS/SS transfers all that easier?
 
Walking home from a Fenway concert the other night, Commonwealth Ave reminded me of the Ramblas, minus the activity of course, but the layout and scale are similar. In contast, the Greenway and Ramblas have nothing in common, except maybe that part by the Columbus memorial and the port where the containing street wall margins have collapsed.

If you wanted to make the Greenway more similar, well, I don't think you can. Its like comparing Gronk's sneaker to a ballerina's slipper. However, you could run some seasonal outdoor cafes down the middle, and that would be fun.
 
tobyjug said:
Walking home from a Fenway concert the other night, Commonwealth Ave reminded me of the Ramblas, minus the activity of course, but the layout and scale are similar. In contast, the Greenway and Ramblas have nothing in common, except maybe that part by the Columbus memorial and the port where the containing street wall margins have collapsed.

If you wanted to make the Greenway more similar, well, I don't think you can. Its like comparing Gronk's sneaker to a ballerina's slipper. However, you could run some seasonal outdoor cafes down the middle, and that would be fun.
Click to expand...

I think that neither Commonwealth or Greenway have the sense of "pedestrian thoroughfare" that Ramblas has. Too many interruptions by cross streets. I understand why that's the case (and I like both C and G), but it's unfortunate as it really impinges on their openness.
 
Greenway with even 1 less lane (nevermind road) or cross street? No thanks. Domino effect. Eliminate a single ramp; Nightmare by 2018.

the Greenway allows the traffic to avoid several narrow streets, old favorite shortcuts (that weren't really ever intended as shortcuts) and bottlenecks. But just wait for all these new buildings and density HOLY GOD!! ...and the monoliths coming down in 10~15 years for 3 or 4 more skyscrapers. This is all we get folks.

Navigating downtown before the Big Dig sucked... You think we have excess capacity now and the flexibility to cut a ramp or two. NO WAY. All these nice new buildings are going to need double the traffic capacity to move the new fleet of service trucks, moving trucks, cars, etc.... Cherish these service roads!!

God they nailed it. It's as good as it ever was going to be in terms of streets, keeping the traffic nightmare at bay (for an old city crossing of these neighborhoods).... Are you all forgetting about the soon to be humongous Seaport? Just wait til we get the new Bridge.... and finally, the pedestrian right of ways and green patches. They are what they were going to be. You can rearange a few bricks, add a few pedestrian bridges. But that's it, imo.

I wonder when we'll be asking how this turned into a traffic nightmare so fast.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can do much for the Greenway traffic scenario. You need to create more efficient transmit scenarios.

A couple of ideas that could help Seaport connect with Greenway:
#1 A Trolley Track (SF type) right in the middle of street that connects somewhere near Hook/Greenway and rides straight down the Seaport strip.

#2 Mono-rail over the water connected from Aquarium to the end of Seaport.
These would help Walking pedestrians that wanted to get from 1 point to another without driving.

#3 Expansions on the Rails (MBTA seems to be too much in FLUX to figure out solutions)

Couple of possibilities that may keep people from driving into town.
 
Shepard said:
Henry - see CSTH's post which I think is a great explanation for how and where vision was lacking, even if some parts ended up successful.

To build on it:

Here's the question that was asked. What should replace an ugly road that rips through downtown?
Here's the way that question was answered. A nicer road, obviously. One that's better landscaped, more park-like.

So it was going to stay a road. But it wasn't just a road. It was a 6-lane road. A collector-distributor highway "SURFACE ROAD" as the overscaled street signs so prominently signal. But it wasn't just that. It was also La Rambla! Oh, and not just that. It was also a horticultural showcase! Oh, and not just that. It was Boston's answer to the National Mall, a collection of not-for-profit cultural institutions! (How will they afford to build over complicated ramp parcels? *Shrug*)

... but still, was making it a corridor to stroll really a worthy goal?

And let's say, for a second, that we really needed all those ramps, and that nothing could easily be built on those ramps, and that nothing could easily be built anywhere over the tunnel for that matter. Even in that case, nobody looked around and said - hmmm, six lanes of surface traffic... what about just four lanes of traffic and a heritage trolley? A GLX to tie into the seaport? Hell, even some dedicated bus lanes to make NS/SS transfers all that easier?
Click to expand...

Shepard -- that was a nice expository on why the Greenway didn't and couldn't become the Boston version of La Ramblas

But of course the problem is that you fail to address the real reason for the Greenway

The problem the the Big Dig set out to try to remedy was that with the earlier cancellation of I-95 SW Expressway and I-695 Inner Belt -- all of the traffic not just that wanting to come into Boston -- but also that wanting to bypass Boston from the North or South was forced to flow through the elevated Central Artery. Add in the incredibly poorly structured ramps to/from the tunnels with no provisions made for acceleration and deceleration lanes and the result was near permanent gridlock.

First things first was the Ted Williams that doubled the capacity of the traffic to/from Logan and further diverted much of the airport traffic from the west from ever entering the central Artery. That was vital -- but not sufficient.

There just was no way to increase the capacity of the aging Central Artery without rebuilding it as a double decker -- nearly unimaginably fraught with problems of all types. So Fred Salvucci, good MIT engineer -- thinking way out of the box -- proposed burying the Artery and then restoring the surface street grid that had existed before the Artery cut it apart -- effectively creating 12 lanes where 6 had existed. To make this palatable to his friends in the CLF they promised the Greenway in the middle.

From the standpoint of highway engineering the Big Dig has solved the current capacity issues and tremendously improved the ramp situations. As a side benefit we got the Greenway. As a further side benet we got a vastly improved core utility infrastructure.

Can the Greenway itself be further improved -- of course -- will it be -- more than likely. We've got time on our side -- as the surrounding once undesirable properties because of their proximity to the all the bad of the Central Artery become some of the most desired because of the presensce of the Greenway -- the whole thing will get better.
 
Yes that rant back and forth has gone on multiple times and it always has the same arguments and counter arguments. We don't need to open that can of worms again.
 
There should be days where the roads next to and cutting through the greenway are shut down to traffic. What is the point of having a concert in the park if you can't hear it because cars are speeding by, honking horns, blasting music etc? Planning for traffic instead of people is anti-city, terrible for pedestrian safety and everyones overall health, and does nothing but encourage more people to drive, which creates traffic in the end.

Plan the city for people who are there to enjoy it, not the people driving through it.
 
I think there needs to be a balance. Not everybody lives near a subway line or even within the city and they still need to be able to get to work. At the same time you don't want it to look like downtown Orlando.
 
stick n move said:
I think there needs to be a balance. Not everybody lives near a subway line or even within the city and they still need to be able to get to work. At the same time you don't want it to look like downtown Orlando.
Click to expand...

I absolutely get the point you're trying to make and I agree with you. However, I've spent some time in Downtown Orlando and while it's not perfect by any stretch, it's a better urban center than most people give it credit for and has some- dare I say- nice urban nodes.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/O...a5bf9e!8m2!3d28.5383355!4d-81.3792365!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/O...a5bf9e!8m2!3d28.5383355!4d-81.3792365!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.540...M8jng_TOW8nWabyHxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Again, it's off-topic, your point is valid, but I feel I have to defend poor Orlando in this instance because it's not nearly as bad as people think.
 
Kinopio said:
There should be days where the roads next to and cutting through the greenway are shut down to traffic. What is the point of having a concert in the park if you can't hear it because cars are speeding by, honking horns, blasting music etc? Planning for traffic instead of people is anti-city, terrible for pedestrian safety and everyones overall health, and does nothing but encourage more people to drive, which creates traffic in the end.

Plan the city for people who are there to enjoy it, not the people driving through it.
Click to expand...

Sorry for being a broken record here, but these roads should be narrowed and the streets that cut through should be either removed or paved with something that makes it clear that they are as much for pedestrians as for vehicles.
 
Justin7 said:
Sorry for being a broken record here, but these roads should be narrowed and the streets that cut through should be either removed or paved with something that makes it clear that they are as much for pedestrians as for vehicles.
Click to expand...

Justin -- they are STREETS in a Big City not some chewy granola nature path on the Cape

Cars, pedestrians, Trucks, Mopeds, bicycles, buses, even tourist horse drawn carriages all need to get along to make a city work

Boston actually does a fairly decent job of mixing all of the land modes of locomotion
 
^I'm going to assume you are unaware there is a highway running directly under the greenway. You should look into it. Have you heard of Wikipedia? There's probably something on there.
 
The greenway first and foremost was a concession to get the cat project signed off on. Having a park downtown is beneficial in one way and reconnecting long disconnected roads is beneficial in another. Both need to happen, and do. You can find negatives in everything if you look for them. Just appreciate it for what it is and how much better it makes downtown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top