Rose Kennedy Greenway

On that note..

The Wharf District parks, yesterday, around 12:40 PM. It was in the mid-40s with a very strong sun, and yet all but two people and a bike messenger used the parks for anything more than a way to get from one side of the chasm to the other. I understand it wasn't mid-70s and sunny, but I was hoping to see at least a few more people walking the length of the park. (Nobody was sitting down).

img1769km0.jpg


img1770aw0.jpg


The one bright spot..

img1771cb6.jpg


..yep, that's a snowman!

img1772wk2.jpg


And a couple of workers were doing something to the fountain (it better br putting the finishing touches on the greatest fountain this world has ever seen! Otherwise I'll have to deem this place to be utterly b.o.r.i.n.g.)

img1773ab8.jpg
 
I noticed that the satellite view on Google maps has finally been updated to reflect the Greenway and not the elevated central artery.
 
Hey good catch! They've FINALLY updated the downtown/Back Bay and Cambridge photography so that it's no longer 2003-ish. And it looks to have been taken at the same time as the areas outside of the core, which begs the question: why did they wait so long to release it?
 
Though it would be cool if Google provided an option to select the old or the new view, just so people could compare.
 
YES. Just like what the BRA has for its map viewer.

I'm guessing that as the years pass and they accumulate more and more footage they'll create that feature. It only makes sense.
 
I realize that Google has a lot of server storage space, but you are talking an exponential increase in data storage. I'm not sure that even Google could handle that.
 
Well, yes, it'd require something like 3 times the amount of storage space if it were implemented in the near-term. But exponential? Maybe over time, but currently there aren't that many layers out there (for many places there's only one layer that's less than 10 years old and in color). Plus, they're Google.. server usage for them will greatly increase whether they create this feature or not.

But alright, how about they (or whoever actually owns the images) hand it over to the USGS after it becomes a certain age. Say once it reaches 10 years old it enters the public realm, and they become responsible for storage and access to them.
 
On parking and Museums

While we might decry the planning for parking in a revision of an old faithful or a new museum -- in the US in the 21st Century -- if you are a museum that expects to have enough visitors to keep your doors open -- then you must have parking!!

Not all Museum visitors are from local suburbs who can take the T -- many are on day trips to the MOS, MFA, or the Aquarium from far off suburbs. You also need to accommodate the staff and volunteers some of whom can't take the T or even the commuter rail from where they live either.


Some reasonable number of visitors are coming from even further off -- places such as Cape Cod, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, or New Hampshire -- and even further a-field such as NJ, upstate NY, and even beyond -- who have limited or no public transit options. This is particularly true when the Museum is hosting a ?Blockbuster? timed-ticket exhibition {typically one or two per year}. Most of these ?further-a-field? visitors -- are visiting with their families and they most typically arrive in the metro Boston area by car and stay in some suburban hotel -- they have no realistic alternative to driving and parking.

Of course we need to accommodate the locals and those visitors who arrive by plane or train and stay downtown and who can walk or take the T -- but they represent a small minority of the total visitors. Check with a Museum if you feel differently. I volunteer at MOS on Sundays and I see the visitors from outer suburb and beyond as they arrive both by T and mostly by means of the MOS garage (and occasionally overflow parking at the Cambridge Galleria).


Finally -- remember that these great Museums are effectively entertainment venues ? and are competing for customers with Six Flags, Movie theaters, Sturbridge Village, Lifestyle Centers, Ikea, Burlington Mall and yes the Yankee Candle Factory -- all of which feature copious parking.

Westy
 
Curious, then, that the museums in New York and DC lack much nearby parking but seem to do just fine.

remember that these great Museums are effectively entertainment venues

Maybe this is part of the problem. The museums in this city try to compete with theme parks and video arcades. Attracting the wrong sort of people to the city - the kind who can't do anything without towing along the SUV or minivan.
 
Providing at least some parking for museums is probably a good thing. This is best done, in my opinion, through public shared parking, not by parking dedicated specifically to the museum itself. It should be parking that charges users by the hour or the day, and should be pretty expensive. Museums (as should most urban businesses) should encourage people to take transit as much as possible, even encouraging people to park at more remote locations such as Alewife and take the T into the city.
 
Curious, then, that the museums in New York and DC lack much nearby parking but seem to do just fine.

Yeah the MET definitely doesn't have much parking around it. I could be wrong but I don't think so. Think about all the people that pack in there daily from all over the place. We need to promote mass transit usage from parking hubs on the outskirts of the city, instead of promoting more vehicular traffic into the area. If the greenway is to be utilized properly - with both development and parks, i think another subway/bus/lrt line should be added, with connections from lines that terminate at high capacity parking garages. Could environmental tolls & taxes be explored to demote people from driving into the city (because they don't want to pay rush hour tolls,) and more emphasis be placed on the mass transit aspect? Or would this have an adverse affect with visitors to the city? Atlantic Avenue/Cross St. already have plenty of traffic on them to begin with even without such major attractions as museums and community centers (obviously discounting TD Banknorth Garden.)
 
Museums in NYC don't need parking because of the millions of mass transit using residents that live in the city's urban core. Boston is a little different.
 
But isn't New York, (or London or Paris) a good model to emulate here?
 
Boston's metropolitan area has ~6 million people. NYC's metropolitan area has ~22 million people. Boston's density is 12,327 people /square mile. NYC's density is 27,203 people/square mile. I'm not advocating parking lots, I'm just saying that it's easier for NYC museums to succeed without them because people in NYC have a different "transit lifestyle" than people in Boston.
 
It's a chicken/egg dilemma.

If we start building transit oriented attractions and spaces won't a transit oriented city develop around them?
 
Most of the visitors to the museums in New York (or DC or Paris or London for that matter) are tourists from out of town, not day trippers from the suburbs, which is why transit works for them (and many of those who aren't tourists are local students and such who are usually carless anyway). If the same is true in Boston, the arguments for parking don't really hold up.
 
Museums in NYC don't need parking because of the millions of mass transit using residents that live in the city's urban core. Boston is a little different.

I see a difference but I still think that programs that promote such usage in the city of Boston could work. I'm not talking about a car free city, just more emphasis placed on major parking hubs with many mass transit lines intersecting/main transit line/bus line intersecting to bring people in. Obviously this model is used all over but in smaller proportions. I still think a tax or fee for rush hour - for 'environmental detriment' would be a good idea, not only to raise more money for mass transit but also to demote people from driving all the way in - like i said. I like how so many people park at Alewife and come in on the red line and connect with other lines in the city.
 
Thats $13 million, the mayor didn't want to pay for.
Greenway budget calls for $13.2m

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | March 5, 2008


In its first full year of control over the city's new corridor of parks, the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy plans to spend $13.2 million for maintenance and operations and to complete elements left undone by the cash-strapped Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

That planned spending, for fiscal 2010, will include $3.7 million to finish the parks - including installing signage and building maintenance facilities - and $3 million for park operations. The rest will go for administration, public and education programs, and other expenses.

The three-year-old conservancy yesterday issued its first-ever business plan at its monthly board meeting, but the budget is contingent on pending legislation that would provide $5.5 million a year of state funds for Greenway purposes, as well as make changes in the makeup of the current 10-member board.

The first public hearing on that bill, introduced last year by House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, is scheduled for next week.

Asked what would happen to the business plan if the funding is not approved, conservancy board chairman Peter Meade said: "Back to square one."

The conservancy is a private nonprofit group that was created to assume maintenance, operational, and event-planning responsibility for the Greenway. The Greenway is 13.2 acres of green and open space in a 30-acre corridor downtown where the Central Artery stood, before it was replaced by underground tunnels in the $15 billion Big Dig project.

Meade has said from the outset that the conservancy, as long-term steward of the Greenway, would need to raise an endowment of $50 million to maintain it sufficiently and to make it - as is the organization's goal - "open, green, excellent, and welcoming to all." Meade said yesterday he still believes that much will be needed, and the conservancy has a goal of raising another $17 million or so over the next four years.

It raised $20 million by the end of last year, as it was required to do in its bylaws; about $7 million of that came from the Turnpike Authority.

Nancy Brennan, executive director of the conservancy, said the staff studied 23 organizations with responsibility for parks before deciding what was right for the Greenway. Standards for upkeep will be even higher than for the Boston Public Garden and Post Office Square Park, she said, and it will be maintained in an environmentally friendly manner.

A grand inaugural celebration of the Greenway parks is planned for the weekend of Oct. 4.

The costs of operating the Greenway will work out to more than $5 per square foot, Brennan said, because of the complicated path the corridor covers: It crosses 12 side streets as it courses from Causeway to Kneeland, has complex fountain and computer-driven lighting systems, needs maintenance facilities, and faces an intense schedule of events from May through October.

The conservancy will begin taking responsibility for the parks gradually - starting with the Chinatown Park in fiscal 2009, which begins June 30. In 2010, it will take over the other two regions as well, the four-block Wharf District and two blocks of elaborately designed parks in the North End.

The budget for fiscal 2009 is set at $7.5 million. For each of the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the budget is set at $8.6 million. That is less than 2010's budget of $13.2 million because the conservancy will have completed the parks by then.

The $13.2 million in 2010 will come mostly from the state, private support, and $3.5 million of borrowed money.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/03/05/greenway_budget_calls_for_132m/
 
Last edited:
Most of the visitors to the museums in New York (or DC or Paris or London for that matter) are tourists from out of town, not day trippers from the suburbs, which is why transit works for them (and many of those who aren't tourists are local students and such who are usually carless anyway). If the same is true in Boston, the arguments for parking don't really hold up.

I agree and disagree. I think it depends on which museums you're talking about. Having grown up just outside NYC, I know that certain museums thrive more on suburban and inner city day trippers (Museum of Natural History, Hayden Planetarium, Museum of the American Indian -- is it still called that?) whereas others are perhaps maybe split 50-50 or only slightly more dominated by hotel-staying tourists (the Guggenheim, the Whitney, MoMA, the Met). That's been my experience, but could be wrong.
 

Back
Top