Rose Kennedy Greenway

The buildings to be built on the Greenway are over ramps. Thus the design and engineering made specific provision for structures, and their weight, at these locations.
Click to expand...

The ones proposed for the Bullfinch Triangle will not be over ramps, but will be right over the main (non-ramp) tunnels. Also, I think the tunnels, at least near Causeway Street, are close to the surface as they emerge out of portals just on the north side of that street.

As for the rest of the Greenway, the cost of spanning the tunnels could be offset by allowing some high-rise construction. I think a mix of low, mid, and high-rise would be a good mix anyway. The taller buildings would offset the cost of hefty foundations and beams needed for the smaller as well as larger buildings.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The buildings to be built on the Greenway are over ramps. Thus the design and engineering made specific provision for structures, and their weight, at these locations.
Click to expand...

The ones proposed for the Bullfinch Triangle will not be over ramps, but will be right over the main (non-ramp) tunnels. Also, I think the tunnels, at least near Causeway Street, are close to the surface as they emerge out of portals just on the north side of that street.

As for the rest of the Greenway, the cost of spanning the tunnels could be offset by allowing some high-rise construction. I think a mix of low, mid, and high-rise would be a good mix anyway. The taller buildings would offset the cost of hefty foundations and beams needed for the smaller as well as larger buildings.
Click to expand...

The tunnel and ramp structures beneath the Bulfinch Triangle parcels were designed from the beginning to have buildings on them. Elsewhere, where there was no provision made during design for constructing a building on top of the tunnel, you are in fantasy-land. And if your original intent was to restore a small-scale urban grid to the Greenway, you don't achieve that by constructing mid-rises and high-rises on your parcels.

CA/T Project Tunnel design assumptions. In addition to being designed for full soil backfill and surface roadway surcharges, the design of CA/T Project tunnel structures in the Bulfinch Triangle area included some consideration of future building loading. In order to develop load
cases for the final design of the CA/T Project tunnel structures, hypothetical building masses based on applicable zoning and the then-current street configuration were assumed. The CA/T Project tunnels were designed to support these building masses (described below) among other load scenarios. Capacity may exist to support additional building loads, based on specific building designs and their relationship to the underlying tunnel structures. The Selected Developer will be responsible for demonstrating that all proposed buildings will not adversely affect the underlying tunnel structures, as described below.

i. Assumed building mass and site plan. The design loads from future development for the tunnel structures were based on a preliminary concept of an eight-story building across former Parcels 1 and 2 (current Parcels 1, 1B, 2 and 2A). These loads were considered in the final design of the tunnels.

ii. Assumed building structure. It was assumed in the engineering analyses that the columns of the hypothetical test-case buildings would bear directly on the tunnel and ramp structures. The buildings would have irregular column grids in order to align with some of the SPTC walls of the tunnels. This would result in spans of 15 to 32 feet for former Parcel 1 (current Parcels 1 and 1B) and spans of 10 to 30 feet for former Parcel 2 (current Parcels 2 and 2A).

Floor-to-floor heights for the building would be approximately 14 feet. The engineering analyses assumed that moment-resisting space frames would be used for the building. A single basement level and complete removal of soil under the building was assumed in the engineering analyses. The assumed building masses were conceptually designed using the current State Building Codes and realistic assumptions in order to ensure that capacity in the tunnel structures was available. Only vertical dead and live loads of the building were considered during the final design of the tunnels. All relevant loads, including, without limitation, wind and earthquake impacts, should be considered as the final building design progresses. [Note: the seismic loads, which were not factored, could affect the size of the building.]

iii. Highway structure impacts. The foregoing loads were applied on the mainline tunnel roofs as point loads distributed over three roof girders instead of soil loads. Although the tunnels were checked to accommodate the loading from the building structure, no specific attachment details or locations were developed or mandated.
Click to expand...

Clearance to tunnel roof structures. The depths from the surface of the Parcels to the roofs of the tunnel structures vary in a north/south and east/west direction. The CANB and CASB tunnels rise as they proceed northward from North Washington Street to the Bridge, while ramp SA-CN drops slightly (although there is generally very little cover over the SA-CN tunnel). The street grade rises by approximately 1.5 feet in a north/south direction over the same area. In the Valenti Way area, the street grade is at approximately elevation 112 while the roof of the CANB tunnel is near elevation 96 (16 feet below street grade), the CASB tunnel is near elevation 99 (13 feet below street grade) and the SA-CN tunnel is near elevation 111 (1 foot below street grade). Near the midpoint of the Parcels (north/south direction), the street grade is at approximately elevation 113.5 while the CANB tunnel is near elevation 101 (12.5 feet below street grade), the CASB tunnel is near elevation 105 (8.5 feet below street grade) and the SA-CN tunnel is near elevation
110 (3.5 feet below street grade). All three upper tunnel structures are at nearly the same elevation as they near Causeway Street: while the street grade is at approximately elevation 113.5, the CANB and CASB tunnels are near 111 (2.5 feet below street grade), and the SA-CN tunnel is near 109.5 (4 feet below street grade).
Click to expand...

http://234causewaycondos.com/draft.pdf
 
Weren't the MassHort parcels designed to have small buildings on them?
 
And if your original intent was to restore a small-scale urban grid to the Greenway, you don't achieve that by constructing mid-rises and high-rises on your parcels.
Click to expand...

I think the intent of several people on this board, myself included, would be a development consistent with the existing downtown urban context. That would include some mid and high-rise buildings. In the North End area, I would see mostly low rise buildings, which I think would be feasible there as the mainline tunnels are deeper where they dip below the Summer and Callahan ramp tunnels. In the Wharf District, high-rise buildings would fit in with the adjoining business district and waterfront high rises. State Street is where the mainline tunnels are the shallowest as they cross over the Blue Line, but high-rises would fit well at that location.

I don't think people want a museum type replication of old Boston built on the Greenway Corridor, just a normal, functional city which would have buildings of various heights.
 
Ron Newman said:
Weren't the MassHort parcels designed to have small buildings on them?
Click to expand...

Parcel 12, Has ramps. Reserved for Safdie's Boston Museum. (No parcel 13)

Parcel 14, tunnel roof is near the surface. Too shallow for trees to be planted directly in ground. Small buildings no more than 35 feet in height can be constructed. (Parcel opposite Marriott Long Wharf)

Parcels 15 and 16, tunnel roof is just below the surface. Too shallow to plant trees in the ground. (These parcels are opposite Aquarium and Harbor Towers.)

Parcels 17A and B: Reserved for Center for Arts and Culture.

Parcel 18: Has ramps. Opposite International Place. Tunnel structure would support building of up to 6 stories.

Parcels 19, 21, and 22 were the MassHort parcels. Parcel 22 was to be an all-season Japanese Garden; Parcel 19 was to be a 9 story glass Winter Garden; Parcel 21 was to be a small commercial building -- five stories? -- with MassHort exhibits on lower floors and office space on the upper floors.

For renderings and further description of MassHort plans, see:
http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/news/artery_033003_magazine_1.htm

For an out-of-date parcel summary, see:
http://boston.com/beyond_bigdig/parcels/parcel18.htm
 
Parcel 18, the ramp parcel opposite International Place as shown on the parcel summary linked to stellarfun's post, not Parcel 17, is reserved for the New Center for Arts and Culture. Parcel 17 is part of the Wharf District Parks.
 
Go to the Chinatown park now. It's open (except for a small portion near Essex St).

Take pictures.

Post them here.

Enjoy the park.
 
Lol.. Aye aye, captain!

** And Waldorf, you're alive! Great to see you posting again.
 
What's the purpose?

I don't see that the New Center offers anything to the overall environment of the downtown

What they should be sponsoring is a Roofed and partially enclosed Public Market

I like the idea of glass and stainless steel -- but the rest of the design is superfluous

If we want a model for the Greenway we should look to Krakow Poland. I just returned from visiting it -- where the old defensive walls were mostly pulled down and replaced by a belt of Green called the Planty

The width of the Planty is about the same as the Greenway and there is a wide street immediately adjacent on one side {with a tramline} that opens to the modern city and narrow streets and the pedestrian friendly old town {many parts of the historic center allow no private motor vehicles} on the other side

What the Greenway should do is focus on forming the boundary of the financial core adjacent to a recreational and residential waterfront

A public market next to Row's Wharf -- accessible to all would be the best contribution that the New Center backers could provide to the city the Metro region and the visitors from far and wide

westy
 
Does anyone know what happened to the Harbor Islands Pavilion? I haven't heard any news about it for months...I hope it wasn't scrapped.
 
The pictures of the Chinatown Park parcel found in Ron's post are beautiful, especially the pics taken at night. The very cool lighting, the waterfall and stream, the bamboo, the sail...this small park is a gem. And the Dainty Dot building...what's to complain about? It's decrepit brick wall with electrical conduits running up it's side, along with it's billboard, provides the perfect "old Boston" backdrop for the waterfall and park.
 
Need to do something with that UGLY Parking Garage

Chinatown Park looks great in its early stages of evolution -- except for that view across the street to the UGLY Parking Garage 8)

Perhaps now some enterprising developer will see the opportunity to replace it with something appropriate

Westy
 
Long narrow buildings like the New Center for Arts and Culture, and the Garden under Glass will form more onerous walls than the old Artery because they are tedious to talk around and the action is elevated above street level. If any buildings are built on the Greenway, they should be quite small IMO. Large projects like the the New Center for Arts and Culture should be built in the SBW where they would draw people to and across the Greenway into an area that needs activity and has plenty of room for large-scale creative architecture.
 
The Garden Under Glass, if built, would have been at street level. I'm not sure why any of these buildings would make talking tedious.
 
Long buildings form a wall. Not everyone wants to walk through them to get to the other side, especially if people are funneled through gift shops, ugly hallways or have to pay admission. All I can go by are the renderings, but these buildings block views in the relatively narrow Greenway, and are an impediment to crossing to the waterfront and beyond. It's only my opinion, but I would prefer a well bounded open space with attractions on both sides to a series of monumental buildings along the center of the Greenway.
 
Three of the proposed buildings are on parcels full of highway ramps, which are completely impossible to walk across at the moment. (I think one of them has a temporary walkway sandwiched into it to allow walking along it, as opposed to across it.) The buildings would be less of a barrier than the current ramps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top