Rose Kennedy Greenway

An outdoor rink would be terrific come wintertime. If there were trees, they could put some lights in them as well, really making the area pretty cool. The water on one side, and the city on the other. Throw in a pushcart or two, and you have a great little spot.
 
I like the idea of the rink too. but my big question is (and I'm asking seriously because I don't know), are there any nice locations for a rink on the RKG where wind wouldn't be an issue?

Most outdoor urban rinks that I've been to (which is a short list: Providence, Central Park NYC, and Rockefeller Center) have all had one thing in common: buffers for the wind. In Central Park it's nature, thick tree cover plays a roll in this, and Rockefeller Plaza's rink is sunken below ground. In Providence, it's below the street level and surrounded closely by the ticket counter and other small structures and as a result, the wind is kept at bay (mostly).

It's impossible to sink a rink on the RKG below ground, and the tree cover will be thin for the better part of the next decade, so where would it be protected enough from the wind? There's nothing more miserable than trying to Ice Skate when it's 29 Degrees and the wind's blowing in your face.
 
An outdoor rink would be terrific come wintertime. If there were trees, they could put some lights in them as well, really making the area pretty cool. The water on one side, and the city on the other. Throw in a pushcart or two, and you have a great little spot.

The winning competition entry for the Wharfs District park had an outdoor rink, as well as at least one of the runners-up.

An aside, I just found out the second place was a team of WRT and West 8. This is like a punch in the stomach, which will counter even harder next time I walk by those monstrous blade lights.
 
This post would also fit in the Design A Better Boston forum but then we would have 2 RKG threads and it would get confusing.

I, as I'm sure many of you, have always felt that the main failing of the RKG was that there was too much open space. This was done, as I see it, as a knee jerk reaction to ripping down the old Central Artery with a total lack of leadership when it came to designing and building what came after it (I've seen plenty of great designs but where are they now?) People saw this as an opportunity to redefine downtown and create parks that would bring the area back to life (rightly so). But the problem, I think, is that people didn't really know what they wanted. They knew they wanted parks, and I think this was the right thing to ask for, but I don't think they understood that undefined open space, like the Greenway is now, only continues the void created by the old highway.

Open-space has become a meaningless buzz word. When you go to a community meeting about a new development always someone brings up open-space, but who knows what that means. Suburbs have plenty of open-space but the space is undefined and useless. What makes an open-space useful and lively is a good design and a good definition. Undefined spaces feel like giant voids in the urban fabric (see: Government Center).

What defines a space? Buildings do. This was and is one of the truths that modern architecture threw out. Modern buildings exist in their own world and space which disconnects it from the buildings around it. Doing this once and a while can be fresh and interesting. Doing this all the time creates a 'no-place' that isn't connected to the rest of the city and makes it hard for the person to connect to it.

I see the Greenway as not a cohesive parkway linking the city together (much like Comm. Ave or the Fenway) but rather a disconnected series of open spaces with little or no relation to each other or the city. Some places I do feel work (North End parks, Chinatown park, Dewey Sq) and some places I feel have the potential to be great parks if only properly defined (Wharf park, the park in front of Rowes Wharf). But the other "parks" are not real parks and should not be used for open space. These areas need to be the second part to defining an area, buildings.

Here is a map of the Greenway (from Bulfinch Triangle to Dewey Sq)

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...d=101230698274121090525.00045792c68f85024c6a5

On this map I have outlined 4 different areas:
The Blue are parcels that have been designated as development zones. The development here is designed to knit the Bulfinch Triangle back together I think that it will succeed.
The Green are parks/plazas/open-space that I feel should be preserved.
The Red are cultural buildings that are being planned and will go a long way in defining the Greenway as a whole.
The Orange are places that are now open-space but should have buildings on them. These are the places that we need to define the rest of the parks and the Greenway as a whole.

I think that the people who envisioned the Greenway saw themselves as carrying on the legacy of Olmsted, who created the Emerald Necklace of parks and parkways linking the suburbs of Boston. But what I think they missed was that the parks that Olmsted built came first and it was the city that adapted to them. The city already existed when the Greenway was built and it is the Greenway that needs to adapt to the city.

What was the original purpose of the Greenway? To link together the parts of downtown that were torn apart by the Central Artery while creating park space for the city. We have created the park space, yes, but to connect the city we need to fill in the other parts. Parks alone do not connect, and if poorly placed they can divide (would you say Central Park connects the Upper West and East sides? I wouldn't, though that wasn't the purpose of Central Park). Only buildings can connect places. What a park can do is to act as the membrane between two places.

This last bit might be confusing so let me explain: Think of the South End. What is the border between the South End and Chinatown? The Mass Pike. The highway acts as a border which defines the area. When the Central Artery was still up it acted as the border to the North End. It was something to be overcome and when you passed through it there was no mistaking where you had just entered.

Buildings blur this border. Where does Dorchester turn into Roxbury? If you ask 10 different people you might get 11 different answers. Yes, there are streets that one could point to, but it is the buildings on the streets that define the area. If there were no buildings the border would just be the no-mans land between where there were and in a no-mans land there are no true borders.

Parks are different. They act as a border but not in the same way as a highway. They have to ability to blur the boundary. Where would you say the Back Bay ends? Arlington St? Or does it continue into the Public Gardens? And then when you have walked through the gardens you are in the Common, and then on Beacon Hill. The parks have blurred the boundary.

This is why I think the North End parks work. They connect, define, and blur the boundary between the North End and downtown. This is what the rest of the Greenway needs to do to connect the city to the waterfront. I think it is failing because it has only gone halfway.

I think it is up to us to convince people that building a few infill buildings in the Greenway is not a terrible thing but something that will actually help the area grow.
 
Great post. For the most part, I agree with everything that van says here. Maybe a one or two fewer parcels designated for development, but, on the whole, I agree.

The key for the developments on these parcels is for them not to dominate the plot and recreate the feeling of the old Central Artery - that is a large wall coming right up to the street and blocking any view or interaction with the other side. Develop the sites, but leave a buffer on the sides, a walking path to continue the string or something. These buildings shouldn't completely dominate their parcels.
 
A lot of good ideas there, Van. Ive actually been thinking about a lot similar ideas that I will probably post when I get a bit of free time, maybe this weekend.

I think your post should probably be posted in the Design a Better Boston forum, but it's up to you. A lot of people are probably going to want to chime in on how to fix the Greenway.
 
I don't agree with building on the parcel that connects Quincy Market to Christopher Columbus Park. This is an important east-west pedestrian connector that should remain open.
 
I don't agree with building on the parcel that connects Quincy Market to Christopher Columbus Park. This is an important east-west pedestrian connector that should remain open.

This was the one exception to Van's plan I had. otherwise, fantastic post.
 
Beyond that, I'm not even sure I agree with the whole premise. I walk through this parcel of the Greenway whenever I commute to work on the T. I've come to enjoy the view of the splashing fountain, and the Rowes Wharf arch beyond it.
 
My thinking for that piece is it would have a glass arch or some kind for pedestrian passage that would connect the two. There needs to be a connection, I agree.
 
I agree Ron.

Between once and four times per week, I walk the Greenway between South Station and Aquarium.

The fountain by the Aquarium is a pleasant spectacle. Further, the light blades and spikes are pleasing to look at in the evening. Taken collectively over the last several months, I must admit that the overall housekeeping of this stretch is a bit better than I would have expected.

The parcel(s) that [I think] the Mass. Hort. 'owns'--the ones across from Russia Wharf and the Intercontinental--are actually interesting and enjoyable to look at close up and are better maintained (somebody is actually weeding the beds on a regular basis and there seems to be even less trash than the other parcels).

The North End parcels, more universally agreed to be an instant success, are just that. My daughter and I thoroughly enjoyed spalshing around in the fountains there all summer.
 
I agree with Buju - the Dewey Square parcels (nee MassHort) are looking good - specifically the gardens. They are well maintained and nice to walk through. The pathways and grass could use some work however.

I think what is really going to make or break the Greenway is what is going to be programmed on it in the future. October 4th is the grand opening apparently, so if this event goes well, then I am sure we can expect more big events to draw people down.
 
I think if more people were to live on the waterfront, the park will be more accessible. Hopefully the tower (or towers if they can fit two) at the Aquarium can bring more residents to the park. Also the North End parks will benefit greatly if developers ever decide to build residential towers at North Station. The lawn in front of Avenir needs to go. There are two of them. Develop the one (if they have not propose to do so) that already have building on the park and redesign the other park so it's not just a flat surface. Turn it into a basketball court if they have to. That'll bring some traffic.
 
None of the parcels between Haymarket and Causeway Street are intended to be parks. All of them are designated for development. But I agree, it would be better to have some temporary use on them instead of just flat green lawn.
 
^How would they work as temporary spots for pushcart vendors and market overflow space?
 
I fefinitely think that the parcel closest to South Station, up to that squat little mechanical building, needs to be developed in order to enclose Dewey Sq. Something there would really complete Dewey Sq and give it the room-like feel the best public spaces have. As it is, Dewey Sq just feels like it gets sucked through and dissipated into that open space. Another building with an arch leading into the greenway would be nice.
 
^How would they work as temporary spots for pushcart vendors and market overflow space?
They'd be too far away from the rest of the Haymarket. Also, they'd be seperated by the Gov't Ctr Garage and the YMCA Off Ramps.

The Grand Canal has a temporary deck built on the empty parcel behind it. Too bad more businesses aren't doing similarly (although there probably isn't much that lends itself to this as easily as the GC's deck).
 
Greenway?s park upkeep budget slammed

By Paul Restuccia
Thursday, September 25, 2008 - Updated 23m ago

The Greenway Conservancy, which is ramping up to take over the downtown parkland sooner than expected, is already under fire for its budget plan.

Shirley Kressel, a Boston activist and landscape architect by training, questioned the $3.2 million maintenance tab for the 15-acre Greenway.

"I made a lot of calls to landscape firms for estimates and they say maintaining the Greenway should only cost half- to three-quarters of a million dollars a year,? Kressel said yesterday. ?Where will the rest of the money go??

In an interview at the Herald yesterday, Greenway Conservancy Executive Director Nancy Brennan said the entire annual cost of operating the Greenway would be around $7 million.

Brennan is scrambling to take over Greenway operations Dec. 1.

"We thought we wouldn?t start until fiscal year 2010 or 2011,? said Brennan. ?No agreements are in place yet with the city or state to see who does what.?

Dot Joyce, Mayor Thomas M. Menino?s spokeswoman, said the mayor is also concerned about a smooth transition. The city provides trash removal and security. "They had better figure it out soon,? Joyce said.

Brennan said the conservancy is expected to have a staff of between 25 and 30, with 14 to 16 people dedicated to maintenance, plus a cadre of subcontractors.

Kressel, a staunch critic of what she calls a ?private power grab? of the Greenway Conservancy, says the group, which has already raised $20 million from private sources, does not need the $5.5 million that the Legislature is providing it this year.

"They?re a fund-raising powerhouse,? Kressel said, citing a gala the Conservancy will hold at the Boston Harbor Hotel where for up to $25,000 a table, corporate bigwigs "get to hobnob and lobby with politicians - and it?s tax-deductible.?

Brennan said much of the Greenway?s budget will be spent on events, including an Oct. 4 public inaugural celebration. It also plans to subsidize performances by local youth and creative groups.

LINK
 
How bout we change the name to Rose Kennedy Clusterfuck?

Why wasn't someone put in charge? Oh right, this is Boston, everyone wants a piece and no one can share (at least this isn't just Boston's problem, look at the WTC in NYC)
 
The only person "slamming" the Greenway's budget is Shirley Kressel, what a way of making a story out of nothing; just pick up the phone and manufacture an "article" with our resident NIMBY :).
 

Back
Top