Rose Kennedy Greenway

[Suffolk 83]

Plus, the Greenway has an inherant disadvantage to PO SQ.... there's blocks of development in every direction so people naturally walk through there as it is..... the Greenway doesn't really have that

 

[Beton Brut]

And while many people point out there's no one in the greenway, there's almost no one in Post Office Square either... the weather sucks. You can't make an arument against the greenway and ignore that PO sq is empty at the same time. It's called winter people.

Thanks for bringing up the climate in New England -- it's among the more important reasons why the Greenway is a truly dogshit idea.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

See, if no one will go to Post Office Square park, then no one will go to the Greenway when its in a less convenient location. It's that simple, downtown Boston has reached the saturation point for parks and any more would just be a waste. I'd say build as high as you can ON and AROUND the greenway!

 

[statler]

The thing about P.O Square, the Public Garden and to a lesser extent the Common, is that those parks are hemmed in on all sides, so even when they are empty they never feel 'wind swept', abandoned or desolate.
Thanks to the multi-lane roads on either side of the Greenway it will feel empty even when it's busy in the summer. At least in the Wharf districts. The end parks already do a pretty good job of encapsulating their space (the Chinatown park could use some tweaking).
And yes, the few cultural buildings will help - but as planned they will be too little, too late. Rather than interact with the city around them, they are designed to stand alone so the work as extremely large (and ugly) sculptures in a park.
Also... if we are going to be insistent that the Wharf districts be wide open plains of lawn, Chiofaro's plan for a tower will help with the 'hemming in' effect. See Central Park as an example. Also compare the area of the Greenway around International Place vs. the Aquarium and Marriott Long Wharf areas.

 

[Ron Newman]

but Post Office Square is surrounded by roads of similar width to those on the Greenway.

 

[Padre Mike]

I've had a long conversation with the man in charge of keeping the greenway "green." He was lamenting the butchered job the plows were doing on the walkways and the indiscriminate spreading of grass-killing salt. He was heart broken that the DPW was not getting the message about conservative treatment of the plantings and plowing. After further discussion about the high-tech blade sculptures and uselessly low seats beneath them, we both agreed that:
1. The greenway walks should not be plowed at all during the winter. Let the snow blanket and protect the area. Plow only the sidewalks on cross streets. There is plenty of sidewalk space for people on the edges of the streets;
2. There should be at least twice as many trees planted;
3. There should be at least 50% less walkways. Right now they're designed to accommodate veritable parades of people;
4. The buffer zone of lower plantings between the streets and the greenway paths should be twice as wide;
5. The "wild" area formally given to Mass Hort was actually more successful as parkland than the rest of the greenway;
6. There should be far more park benches on the Chinatown section of the greenway plaza;
7. The North End sections are very successful, but the afternoon sun is going to beat down on anyone sitting under the undeveloped arbor (which does not have any cross wires on which the stringy vines can grow and create shade.).

 

[statler]

but Post Office Square is surrounded by roads of similar width to those on the Greenway.

Except that the designers were smart enough to realize this and surrounded the park with tall and thick planting on both the Congress and Pearl St sides on the Park. The buildings on either side are tall enough to continue the effect. On the northern side, Franklin St is a lot narrower (and one way), plus the Telephone Building acts at a third wall. The merger of Pearl and Congress on the northern end acts as the fourth wall. Thus creating an comfortable 'room' effect.

4. The buffer zone of lower plantings between the streets and the greenway paths should be twice as wide;

...and twice as high. Try to make people forget they are sitting in a median strip.

 

[Ron Newman]

Will the plantings grow higher over time? I've seen photos of Comm. Ave. in the Back Bay from the late 1800s, where it looked really bare.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Will the plantings grow higher over time? I've seen photos of Comm. Ave. in the Back Bay from the late 1800s, where it looked really bare.

Folks, we have to give the Greenway some time to evolve. It will take decades for the museums to be built, the border properties to get developed, and the established buildings to be reoriented to the Greenway.

This forum is way to critical of a space that will take long-term evolution to become a valuable part of the downtown fabric. I assume none of you would have built Central Park in New York either.

Everyone seems to forget that much of the waterfront side of the Greenway has been cut off from downtown by hideous overhead transit for almost 100 years! (Before the Central Artery there was the Atlantic Avenue EL). That is not going to be reversed overnight.

Green space, with varied development facing it and crossing it (like the museum parcels) can produce a profoundly livable effect in the city. Do any of you like walking across the Commons?

 

[commuter guy]

Regarding the landscaping buffering:

...and twice as high. Try to make people forget they are sitting in a median strip.

This is a bit of a catch 22 for the greenway and parks in general. The more you buffer the surrounding traffic sewer, the more you decease visibility of the parks from the surrounding city thereby raising safety issues or perceived safety issues (eyes on the street as Jane Jacobs would say).

 

[statler]

Regarding the landscaping buffering:
This is a bit of a catch 22 for the greenway and parks in general. The more you buffer the surrounding traffic sewer, the more you decease visibility of the parks from the surrounding city thereby raising safety issues or perceived safety issues (eyes on the street as Jane Jacobs would say).

Will the plantings grow higher over time? I've seen photos of Comm. Ave. in the Back Bay from the late 1800s, where it looked really bare.

Neither of these were a concern for P.O Sq and they shouldn't be a concern for the Greenway either.

 

[Suffolk 83]

This is a bit of a catch 22 for the greenway and parks in general. The more you buffer the surrounding traffic sewer, the more you decease visibility of the parks from the surrounding city thereby raising safety issues or perceived safety issues (eyes on the street as Jane Jacobs would say).

Are you talking about crime or people emerging from walkways surrounded by bushes into oncoming traffic? Because I could see the latter being a concern, but there's not a ton of crime here and probably never will be.

Could the Greenway actually be built upon? with a 20 story building or whatever? Isn't part of the reason its a park because the tunnel underneath? I know people on here in the past have said this is a reason but I don't know what to believe, I'm no engineer.

 

[BostonObserver]

Most of the people on this forum hate all parks. They should at least have the guts to admit it. Don't even bother to pretend otherwise.

 

[PerfectHandle]

Most of the people on this forum hate all parks. They should at least have the guts to admit it. Don't even bother to pretend otherwise.

So true.

Will the plantings grow higher over time? I've seen photos of Comm. Ave. in the Back Bay from the late 1800s, where it looked really bare.

Ron...you have perspective.

The Greenway is going to be an indispensable and spectacular part of Boston, just like the Comm. Ave. Mall is now. It hasn't even been open a year yet. Have a little patience people.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Question: "Could the Greenway actually be built upon? with a 20 story building or whatever?"

It possibly could, with the building sitting on beams spanning the tunnel. The beams would be hidden and incorporated into the building, and the ground floor would generally be raised above ground level due to the beams. For specific sites this wouldn't be the case for the entire building, because the tunnel width doesn't always fill the entire width of the Greenway.

Honestly, I don't think people on here are against parks, just against badly located parks and a gross imbalance of open space. The Wharf District already had Christopher Columbus Park before the Big Dig was built. The configuration of the Greenway from Dewey Square north to Hanover Street is a gunbarrel type corridor with two heavily trafficked higway type roadways on a sweeping alignment, totally out of charcater with the quirky and finely etched adjoining historic street pattern.

If they had at least introduced some variety, some twists and turns and various combinations of a two-way boulevard and the one-way couplet, it would have broken up a bit the sweeping freeway corridor which is now the case.

 

[Lrfox]

Most of the people on this forum hate all parks. They should at least have the guts to admit it. Don't even bother to pretend otherwise.

I'm not going to try to speak for everyone, but I like some parks and hate many others. Too many new projects include open space for the sake of open space. The general public will be more likely to accept a project if some sort of "park" or open area is included. Because developers want to make the most possible money from their investment (it's not wrong, it's simple economics), many parks and open areas created nowadays are poorly planned and end up as dead space.

It's never as simple as replacing one thing with another (which is what happened in the case of the RKG- one scar for another). The plan after the Artery was razed should have included some well placed open space and should have encouraged mixed-use development in most of the other parcels. This would create some activity there by having the well-placed parks be focused on by new development. The way it stands now is that the RKG parks (most of them, anyway) are an afterthought of their surroundings. Instead of a small green median that is on your way from Quincy Market to the North End or Aquarium, they could have had some vibrant small parks that were oasises in the midst of new development.

Instead, they took the newly open land (which had been ignored by surrounding buildings and development for nearly 50 years) and slapped some grass and trees on it. The primary reason for this is that the prospect of parkland gives people a warm-fuzzy feeling and leads to more support for the Big-Dig. The end result is spots of green to cover a scar. It's like a city-sized Captain Planet Band-Aid for Boston.

Do people here mostly dislike parkland? yeah... but too many failures nationwide when it comes to park planning is the reason. I think that this perception, when contrasted to the Enviro-Erections of the typical citizen could create a good balance. A balance that is still tipped too far in the wrong direction right now.

 

[BostonObserver]

7. The North End sections are very successful, but the afternoon sun is going to beat down on anyone sitting under the undeveloped arbor (which does not have any cross wires on which the stringy vines can grow and create shade.).

Wasn't this designed by a major landscape firm, I find it hard to believe that they didn't know what they were doing.

As for everything else on your list, I expect things to be a lot better once the city or state government is out of the picture and the park is in private hand - the Rose Kenedy Conservancy. Just like PO Square Park is not government mis-managaed.

http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/

 

[czsz]

Conservancies are nice, but they don't really have the funding or the mandate to make the kind of drastic design changes the Greenway requires in order to become a vibrant public space. The name says it all: we'll get a group that lovingly (though god knows how) "conserves" a space we know is a failure. What we need is some kind of Jane Jacobs/Olmstead crossbreed superhero to radically reshape it.

And no, I don't like Post Office Square. The highly-lauded high plantings make it feel cut off from the rest of the city in a way that does a complete disservice to the empty corporate boulevards that flank its sides, and it serves the seasonal midday lunch crowd and practically no one else (contrast this to its New York equivalent, Bryant Park, which is practically overbooked with programming that lasts through the winter). The consensus that this is a great public space is ridiculous. It's a high-strung mutual fund manager's fifteen-minute recreational safety valve.

Oh, and as for the rest of you just now making points like "give the Greenway time" and "maybe nothing could have been built on the Greenway" - try checking the last 38 pages of this thread to see where and how these ideas have been addressed - over and over and over and over again. By the way, Columbus Center is being built over the Mass Pike as we speak, and this ill-conceived space is going to require a lot more than matured foliage to thrive.

 

[Waldorf]

Conservancies are nice, but they don't really have the funding or the mandate to make the kind of drastic design changes the Greenway requires in order to become a vibrant public space. The name says it all: we'll get a group that lovingly (though god knows how) "conserves" a space we know is a failure. What we need is some kind of Jane Jacobs/Olmstead crossbreed superhero to radically reshape it.

And no, I don't like Post Office Square. The highly-lauded high plantings make it feel cut off from the rest of the city in a way that does a complete disservice to the empty corporate boulevards that flank its sides, and it serves the seasonal midday lunch crowd and practically no one else (contrast this to its New York equivalent, Bryant Park, which is practically overbooked with programming that lasts through the winter). The consensus that this is a great public space is ridiculous. It's a high-strung mutual fund manager's fifteen-minute recreational safety valve.

Oh, and as for the rest of you just now making points like "give the Greenway time" and "maybe nothing could have been built on the Greenway" - try checking the last 38 pages of this thread to see where and how these ideas have been addressed - over and over and over and over again. By the way, Columbus Center is being built over the Mass Pike as we speak, and this ill-conceived space is going to require a lot more than matured foliage to thrive.

czsz you are incredibly naive. Naive about the Greenway Conservancy and naive about what the Greenway will do to downtown. Clearly you do not understand what has resulted from the Big Dig. I apologize for the personal attack but it has become clear that you have misjudged the Conservancy and the Greenway for the worse. Yes the Conservancy has the funding, the knowledge, and the authority to make changes to the Greenway. I understand if you thought the Greenway Conservancy is similar to other (powerless) conservancies - eg: Charles River Conservancy, Emerald Necklace Conservancy.

The model you should be follow is something like the Central Park Conservancy in NYC.

 

[czsz]

The Central Park Conservancy cares for Olmstead's vision; it's never acted to overhaul it. Not the best example, nor very good evidence for why we should trust a conservancy to turn this thing around.

Also, I don't think naive is the word you're looking for, either. "Misjudged," perhaps, would fit the mould of your argument better. Naivite is something possessed by the gullible or the overoptimistic. I'm neither the one who is placing his blind trust in an unproven agency whose precedents are less than promising, nor the one who believes against the odds that the Greenway is and will be a success.