Rose Kennedy Greenway

[Suffolk 83]

czsz, you think public garden is a nice little park?

Wow, that doesn't look so hot right there. Your saying people are beating a dead horse about giving the greenway time... but yet you berate the same negative shit day in and day out. It really doesn't take any intelligence or insight to make negative comments.

Give the Greenway time, yes I said it. Look at that picture.

 

[xec]

It's pointless, Suffolk. Most posters on this forum have the same attitude to open space that NIMBYs have to height. Just do what I do: ignore the inane negative commentary.

 

[Beton Brut]

I really think we need to better frame this discussion, in the context of our common interests: good design executed to the betterment of public urban spaces.

I agree that it's difficult to determine how successful any park will be before it's "done," but there's a lot that could be determined by studying what's proposed, considering issues like climate, and the physical conditions at and beyond the site, and taking steps to draw in partners (developers, property owners & managers, and cultural organizations) who can work together to design, execute, and program a shared civic vision.

Quite simply, this is far removed from the reality of the process that has resulted in the ill-conceived nonsense that we have today. The Turnpike Authority, the Mayor and his cabal, and local pols wanting to curry favor with the disparate factions that they represent, formed a circular firing-squad, and took aim at an historic development opportunity; take a stroll through the results of their volley and tell me if you find one aspect of it that is any better than half-assed. If you believe that a mule is a horse built by committee, I can show you some grass in Downtown Boston that needs to be fertilized.

Some questions that could have been posed during the process:

When it became apparent that MassHort wasn't in a position to develop their site (a person with a casual knowledge of non-profit finance could have figured this out several years ago, an audit would have at the time the site was awarded), why wasn't the parcel pulled and assigned to another developer? How about a requirement for financing (or a reality based plan) before the parcels are assigned to any developer, commercial or non-profit.

Were public/private or commercial/non-profit partnerships considered to build on the ramp-sites along the Greenway? Consider that these sites present the greatest engineering challenges and, therefor, highest costs to develop. All have been offered up to non-profits, only one of which is well established (the Y). Does anyone really believe that Safdie's absurd Viking ship is ever going to be built? The Y can only afford to put a few weight benches under a tent and call it a day. The New Center has the money and the will to get its project done; a shame they didn't hire a better architect.

My criticism of the Greenway has always been in the context of demanding better for my tax dollar. Better design, better maintenance, better connection from Downtown to the waterfront.

In a way, the Greenway isn't even better than what it replaced -- the highway could shelter you from the rain.

 

[czsz]

Really, let's not get superficial. The only difference between the Public Garden and the Greenway is not that one has had 150 years of tree growth. The Garden is surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods and is effectively used by them as a backyard. It's filled with attractions that draw people from across the city. It's deep, and sheltered from the traffic around it, which does not begin to approach the highway-like conditions of the Surface Artery. These things are slightly more fundamental advantages that the Greenway won't acquire with mere time.

 

[nm88]

Why won't it change over time? It will take time for the RKG to become the front yard to its neighbors instead of the back yard it has been for decades.

It's true, the concepts by world-class designers seem underwhelming. But the good news about this is: changes can be made. It is open space after all.

Better still, we get to live with it for a while and decide, okay, what do we want? It's like buying a house and dwelling in it for a time before deciding what changes you want.

Whatever anyone thinks of the RKG, love it or hate it, it's not the indignity the steel highway imposed on the city.

 

[czsz]

I never said it wouldn't change over time. It just can't change enough. It has inherent structural flaws that can't be altered with cheap, cosmetic fixes.

It's surprising that people on this forum of all places don't seem to recognize how difficult it is to change anything in this city. Do you think you'll ever see buildings plopped on the Greenway even if there's some magical realization in City Hall that developing the corridor would have been a better way to go? Do you think there's plenty of money sitting around waiting to reconfigure the pathways and landscaping on this thing? They barely have enough to plop down the cheap topsoil they have now. The mayor is already calling for limited heights along the entire corridor; the "this is a sacred park" mentality has taken root before the trees themselves!

At minimum you're all stuck with this waste land for thirty years. I see the way you've decided to cope with it is to delay all cantankerousness and assure yourselves that it'll be better sometime in the distant, mythical future - the same way we all put up with the construction of the Big Dig. I guess the future is now, except when it isn't. Enjoy.

 

[nm88]

One of the facts that can't change: the tunnels will only support limited height.

Would I prefer Boston had built a Millennium Park as Chicago did? Yes. Resoundly, yes. Chicago did in one stroke what Boston can't seem to do with fourteen years of cogitating. We have our Mayor to thank for that; it takes a visionary to achieve a visionary result. (Though, in fairness, Millennium has deep-pocketed benefactors. Another Boston shortcoming.)

Chicago has proved it can be revolutionary: one recalls the World Exposition a century ago as a perfect example of a metropolis prepared to make wholesale change. Boston, once the seat of revolution, is more evolutionary in its growth than adventurous. We're not the wild west, we're staid Puritans. Or we used to be anyway.

The fact that so many among us see a 1000 foot tower as a indication of communal maturity and our world-class design ethos is, perhaps, also part of the problem. Good design is the answer. Childish flourishes are just that, and they tend to be regretted with time.

In a nutshell, that's Boston: cheap, childish, often lacking vision. Sound like anyone we know? Initials "T.M." (Fan Pier, exihibit A.)

Still, we have reason to hope. We built Rowe's Wharf, rehabbed Quincy Market, honor and protect our Victorian past, lament the loss of friends like Scollay, fawn rightfully over our many gifted children, notably Harvard and MIT, and most important (and this website is an indication) we love our city in spite of all its many peculiarities.

RKG is an opportunity muffed. Do we wait 30 years to get it right? Maybe. Hopefully, not. Either way, Bostonians know only the names change, the institutions and their habits remain the same. I hope our quiet acceptance is more Zen than denial.

 

[Ron Newman]

[The Public Garden is] sheltered from the traffic around it, which does not begin to approach the highway-like conditions of the Surface Artery

I'll disagree with that. Arlington, Charles, and Boylston are all considerably wider than the Greenway streets. Arlington and Charles are full of busy speeding traffic, too. Trying to cross either of them at locations without traffic signals can be harrowing.

 

[commuter guy]

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 ....

I agree with CZSZ for the most part on the above statement. Walking along Congress St. edge of P.O. Sq. is not a pleasant walk in downtown Boston. Its forelorn on both the park side and the side with the buildings. It feels exposed with cars race down Congress and there are no parked cars to buffer traffic. Compare to walking on Milk Street in each direction - the feeling on the sidewalk is a world of difference. The parts of P.O sq. that works the best from the perspective of the adjoining sidewalk are the edges near the Verizon building and the fountain near Milk Street where the park opens to the street.

Regarding the comparison with the Public Garden. The streets may be just as wide but they do have parking on both sides to buffer the impact of car traffic. Try strolling along the edge of the Greenway compared to strolling on the perimeter of the Public Garden on Boylston or Beacon St. and you will see the difference. In recent past, I believe the city removed curb lane parking on Arlington Street adjoining the Public Garden. This was a mistake in my opinion. If you look closely you can see the posts of the parking meters severed at ground level and imbedded in the brick sidewalk.

 

[singbat]

In a nutshell, that's Boston: cheap, childish, often lacking vision....

also an apt description of a lot of near sighted professors in torn sweaters chortling over their shiny toys over in Kendall Sq.

 

[BostonObserver]

I'll disagree with that. Arlington, Charles, and Boylston are all considerably wider than the Greenway streets. Arlington and Charles are full of busy speeding traffic, too. Trying to cross either of them at locations without traffic signals can be harrowing.

And this section of Charles St is one of the most dangerouse places to park in the city. Lots of breakins and theft.

 

[Charlie_mta]

The Public Garden is huge, so its peripheral streets are of relatively low significance to the park experience.

In contrast, the RKG is a thin strip of land flanked by major through roadways, essentially a center-strip in a major metropolitan highway.

 

[aquaman]

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.

That's not true at all. There are things such as proportion and placement which make any project (or park) successful. I think most of the people on this forum who decry certain parks do so because the parks or open spaces in question are either disproportionately large, poorly placed, or are of dubious merit. I'd put the Greenway, as it is now, in that category.

None of us would erase the Common or the Esplanade from the map. I think the Comm Ave Mall is terrific. Parks have incredible value with respect to the urban landscape. But a big problem with the Greenway is that it is a median strip with too much surface traffic on either side. The fatal flaw of the Greenway, though, is that there is nothing in it but lawn and some curving walkways. Nothing. What's the draw? A fountain? A park bench? Some lighting stanchion?

Thetruth is there is nothing in the Greenway to make anyone want to go there. Be honest -- have you ever planned a Sunday afternoon around going over to the Greenway? Other than maybe to see a status on it as the trucks move out and the chain link fences come down? If you can come up with one thing about the Greenway that makes you want to schedule a visit, I'd love to hear it, because I can't think of a single reason why I'd go there.

Open space for the sake of open space is not a draw. Did City Hall Plaza not teach anyone that lesson?

 

[Suffolk 83]

I just heard on wbz that there's a meeting tonight on the greenway... they said they're listening to public comments and some suggestions are a temporary horticulture greenhouse that would house community gardens, an ice skating rink and a public market. they also said these are TEMPORARY and that the final plan isn't even close to done yet. Not sure if there's a news article about it.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

The fatal flaw of the Greenway, though, is that there is nothing in it but lawn and some curving walkways. Nothing. What's the draw? A fountain? A park bench? Some lighting stanchion?

Nothing is fatal about it. The greenway is like the city. It will be forever evolving. If it doesn't work, then something will be done. It is in a too prominent location for the city to let turn into an embrassment. Even more so once the inevitable new developments along its stretch come into fruition. This will be a decade long process. It is premature to judge its success at this early stage. Keep in mind there are a lot to be built, 2 museums, a YMCA, the completion of the Bullfinch Triangle. These should help bring life to the area. Also, we are yet to see what kind of programming will be available. The Greenway Conservancy doesn't really officially control the parks yet.

 

[statler]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, P.O. Square was successful right from the start. It didn't require 20-30 years to become fully developed.

The same could be said of the two end parks. Why? Because they are fundamentally sound urban parks.

 

[PerfectHandle]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, P.O. Square was successful right from the start. It didn't require 20-30 years to become fully developed.

The same could be said of the two end parks. Why? Because they are fundamentally sound urban parks.

I think you'll find that, come summer, the Greenway will also be successful. And what can be improved will not take 20-30 years to improve.

 

[stellarfun]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, P.O. Square was successful right from the start. It didn't require 20-30 years to become fully developed.

The same could be said of the two end parks. Why? Because they are fundamentally sound urban parks.

The two end parks are successful -- see the Padre's post about installing more benches -- because they directly adjoin a fairly dense urban residential neighborhood. That sort of neighborhood does not exist elsewhere along the Greenway (Harbor Towers residents have their own not-so-little greenspace).

Otherwise, there is very little on the harbor side of the Greenway to draw people from downtown, and again, a note in the Padre's post about the conservancy considering eliminating some of the paths.

 

[BostonObserver]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, P.O. Square was successful right from the start. It didn't require 20-30 years to become fully developed.

The same could be said of the two end parks. Why? Because they are fundamentally sound urban parks.

Copley Square took over 100 years to get to where is today. Waterfront Park and Elliot park were build, as was a redesign of Copley Sq, with 1960-70's design ideas which have proven wrong and have since been corrected.


You can always tweak these parks but a building is permenant.

 

[statler]

^^ And in a 100 years Copley Square will be something different again.

I'm not say the Greenway will never change. Of course it will. I'm saying that they should strive to get it right the first time (re: P.O.Square).
They have not done this. It is not impossible to do this.
No one is saying that Millennium Park 'needs time' to develop. Why can't we hold the Greenway to the same standard?