Rose Kennedy Greenway

How many times have we used her name today, and it's not even nine. Mission accomplished. Shirley they are looking for you at Old Sturbridge Village and Plimouth Plantation.

I saw the headlines and figured the issue was too little money, another words wow this is incredibly great news. Boston won't be running the park, wow this is incredibly great news.
 
Honestly. It baffles me that this article was written. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to give this woman a soapbox on the Herald's dime? She claims she called up a few landscaping companies. Did the reporter think in might be a good idea to fact check her cost claims?
 
I'm sure I agree with her on a few issues, I was just trying to be funny.
 
True enough...I apologize for the tone of the last post. That said, I generally find that for all of Shirley's noble intentions, she does more harm than good.
 
The cost of help is ruinous these days. The only landscaping firms likely to do it for Shirley's quotes would be of the "mow and blow" variety, and staffed with illegal immigrants, like the guys who used to do Mitt's home in Belmont. Probably more of a highway median strip level of care rather than gardening, etc.

On a big project it is difficult to guestimate costs based phone call quotes. You need a proper specification that includes a clearly defined scope of work. You also have to factor inflated labor costs due to the prevailing wage law.

Still, it would be great if Shirley would post her specs and findings. And I applaud her for trying to do some cost control on the boondoggle.
 
Aside from Shirley, who in Boston is standing up against the privatization of public space? She is the conscience of the city on this issue, and we're the better for it.
 
^Nobody's up in arms about this because nothing's being privitized. This is a straw man argument.
 
Maybe Harvard should have called Shirley's landscaping companies. Harvard has committed to spending $220,000 a year to maintain a 1+ acre park they will build behind the library in Allston. This is one of the design alternatives.

SNAG-01886.jpg
 
^Nobody's up in arms about this because nothing's being privatized. This is a straw man argument.

The Greenway Conservancy has received public money to maintain, manage, and program public lands, and they've been given wide berth to decide how those lands will be maintained, managed, and programmed. Little or no oversight or transparency has been built into their organization; they are accountable only to their board.

So if things go badly, and the public interest is not being served well, and the money of yours that's been spent to maintain the parks that you paid to build is not being used in a way that serves the public effectively and equitably, there is little that you, your mayor, or your governor can do about it short of repealing the legislation that created the Conservancy.

Sounds like privatization to me.
 
The Greenway Conservancy has received public money to maintain, manage, and program public lands, and they've been given wide berth to decide how those lands will be maintained, managed, and programmed. Little or no oversight or transparency has been built into their organization; they are accountable only to their board.

So if things go badly, and the public interest is not being served well, and the money of yours that's been spent to maintain the parks that you paid to build is not being used in a way that serves the public effectively and equitably, there is little that you, your mayor, or your governor can do about it short of repealing the legislation that created the Conservancy.

Sounds like privatization to me.

The conservancy is not restricting who can and who cannot use the park. It is not building private commercial buildings on the greenway. If you want to take a narrow, myopic view of what constitutes public space, you are welcome to argue that this is 'privatization'. The concern of most Bostonians, if I may assume, is to have well maintained, attractive and vibrant public space. There is nothing pernicious about a group of public spirited individuals working to create an ammenity for the city to enjoy. If that's what you define as 'privatization', I'd like a second helping, please.
 
The Greenway Conservancy is set up the same way as countless other beuracracies at the city, state, national, and international level. There is nother insidious here. If you're going to make the argument that these need to be elected positions, then you're going to have to make the argument that the heads of the EPA, FDA, FCC, DOT, et al need to be elected. If you break out your American history book, you'll see that there was a time and place when we did in fact do this... and it led to horrible missmanagment and corruption.
 
Boston Globe - September 30, 2008
Menino seeks to keep Greenway sunlit
Would limit height of buildings along the corridor park

By John C. Drake, Globe Staff | September 30, 2008

Fearful that the city's newest, sun-splashed park could be transformed by developers into a shadowy canyon, Mayor Thomas M. Menino is pushing to limit the height of office and condo towers along the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.

If successful, the Greenway, which represents a huge opportunity for Boston to redefine its waterfront, would have the same protections from large development as the Boston Common and the Public Garden.

"It's not my job as mayor to help developers become rich. My job is to plan the city," Menino said in an interview. "Public funds created a great open space along the Greenway, and now we have private developers who want to put shadows in that open space. We don't want to allow that."

The Boston Redevelopment Authority put out a call last week for proposals from urban design firms to prepare a study for a new Greenway district. Some observers say the move is overdue, though others worry that a drawn-out study phase will leave developers in limbo just as the pace of development proposals along the mile-long park is picking up.

Menino said the protections are vital, even if they slow the pace of development.

"I don't want to have the Greenway be made a canyon, Manhattanized," he said. "The idea behind the Greenway, besides suppressing the roadway, was to connect the downtown with the waterfront. If you have big structures there, you lose the significance of the connection."

The move comes after city planners faced criticism from neighborhood activists for approving a 23-story residential tower near Essex Street, which will loom over the Chinatown end of the Greenway.

While that will not be affected by new height rules, two other projects with the potential to be very large would be affected.

Developer Donald J. Chiofaro wants to build on the site of a parking garage between the New England Aquarium and the Greenway.

And the Raymond Property Co. is readying plans to demolish the hulking Government Center garage near Haymarket and develop a major complex on the site, although specific plans have not been made public.

Among other developments that could be affected by new restrictions, said authority chief planner Kairos Shen, are the site of the James Hook & Co. lobster warehouse, which was destroyed by a fire in May; and potential redevelopment around Faneuil Hall Marketplace.

In a statement, Chiofaro said he welcomed the development of design guidelines for the Greenway, but would not discuss specifics about how it would affect his plan to replace the parking garage near the aquarium.

"We've been thinking hard about the exciting possibilities for turning this eyesore into an icon for the city and a complement to the Greenway," he said. "We want it to be consistent with well thought-out guidelines for the downtown waterfront development of a world-class city."

Chiofaro has been coy about the size of his project, but Shen said the last proposal he saw was taller than the existing 40-story Harbor Towers condos next door.

"We said what they were proposing was more appropriate in the heart of the downtown rather than at the edge of the most prominent site on the harbor," Shen said.

Stephen G. Kasnet, chief executive of Raymond Property Co., part of a partnership that bought the Government Center garage, said in a statement that developers have a vested interest in making sure development along the Greenway is not excessive.

"We are all in agreement . . . that height should slope away from the Greenway on the four acre-plus parcel," Kasnet said in the statement. "A well-protected Greenway is another reason, in addition to excellent transportation access, that this is the best development site in the city, in our opinion."

How the site would be developed after the Interstate 93 tunnel replaced the old elevated highway has long been a subject of debate. Menino first raised the possibility of height restrictions in March during a speech to the Boston Municipal Research Bureau.

The authority has budgeted $150,000 to hire an urban design consultant who would hold planning sessions and public meetings to develop planning principles that the city's zoning commission or redevelopment authority board could consider. Design firms have until Oct. 20 to offer their services to the city.

The Common and the Public Garden were protected from skyscraper development along their borders in 1993.

The redevelopment authority said the Greenway protection district would run from Causeway Street in the north to Kneeland Street in the south, including Bulfinch Triangle, Government Center, and everything two blocks east and west of the narrow, curving park.

The consultant will be asked to assess the potential impact of any new development not only on the Greenway, but also on the neighborhoods it passes through, including the North End, Chinatown, and the Wharf District.

Shen said it was not clear how long the planning process would take, but he said developers should be aware that the city will look at any high-density or tower developers skeptically in the meantime.

"They should know that we would be very concerned about any environmental impact that their development would have on the Greenway," Shen said. "While the study is going on, we would probably be very conservative."

Reaction to the mayor's plan was mixed. Protecting the Greenway from large-scale development was an important step in making it the city's next marquee open space, said Vivien Li, executive director of the Boston Harbor Association.

"Keeping the Greenway and development around it in a scale that allows for the pedestrian experience to be a positive one is really crucial," she said.

And Nancy Brennan, executive director of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, which is in charge of operating the park, said the plan promised to "maintain the Greenway as a vibrant, healthy green space."

But Michael Flaherty, an at-large city councilor who is widely expected to challenge Menino in next year's election, said the move could slow down development projects while the guidelines are drawn up.

"Stalling new investment and new permanent and construction jobs in one of the worst economic environments of recent history appears to be contradictory to the best interests of our city," he said.

"There must be a better solution than postponing investment for a year while the city's hired consultants evaluate the impact to a park that was known about for the last decade."

The process will come too late to affect a Chinatown residential tower approved for developer Ori Ron.

David Seeley, a member of the Mayor's Central Artery Completion Taskforce and a Leather District resident who opposed the Chinatown tower, said the mayor's action was late.

"The city had to have seen this coming," Seeley said. "It's been in the works now for 20 years."

John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com.

The Globe also has an interesting interactive graphic here.
 
Sigh^100.

The Rose Kennedy Blackhole is so strong that existing buildings will be torn down to prevent any shadows at all.
 
great news!!

it's a sad day when Mayor Menino has a better eye for city planning than 95%of the Sky Scraper geeks who don't care where any of these buildings go so long as they are built....

and thankfully it also sounds like Chiofaro also understands that such a spot shouldn't house just another nice but bland apartment tower but rather something iconic that doesn't need to be 40 stories tall to be effective
 
Last edited:
Are we living in Bizaaro World? Take a look at the diagram that ran with the article in the Globe. The first shows the shadows around mid-day; not even the tallest buildings Downtown are casting a shadow on the Greenway (1 of the Harbor Towers excluded). The second shows the shadows around 3; the Greenway is covered from Dewey Sq to Christopher Columbus Park. How will Menino's height restrictions change any of this? This plan is pointless, pointless, pointless.
 
No buildings with shadows near the so-called greenway...no buildings with shadows near the Public Garden or Boston Common.... Look at a map of our city's downtown - we are book-ending the city with development restrictions and squeezing the city's economic future in the middle.

Why can't they start putting building lengths in these articles? Can you imagine:

"Archstone Avenir soars to 490 feet long, completely walling off Canal Street. The monolithic 50-story-horizontal tower was dropped right onto the very neighborhood that the Big Dig had promised to re-open and re-knit.

'This kind of building length is not what we need in this neighborhood, even at just five stories, it keeps Canal Street fully shrouded in shadows for much of the day, where a 490 foot high building, with half of the footprint would have at least let some sun shine into the street' said concerned activist person with no discernible job."
 
great news!!
it's a sad day when Mayor Menino has a better eye for city planning than 95%of the Sky Scraper geeks who don't care where any of these buildings go so long as they are built....

Wow, what a contradiction! Maybe you meant to write suburban planning?

And maybe you should spend a little more time on the forum before you make false criticisms?
 
We are talking about the same guy who rushed willy nilly into soliciting a 1,100 foot tower only blocks away from the Greenway? Being selective doesn't quite mean he is trying to turn Boston into something more suburban.

A developer shows interest and so many people jump and then think the proposed project has to be built just because it was proposed. They get fixated on the idea that something could go there!! If Druker proposed a tower at the Shreve Building I am guessing people wouldn't even be fighting it like they are his crappy monolithic groundscraper.

There needs to be a distinction between people being against height on principle and being against height as something acceptable everwhere, in every possible location. The Mayor is obviously a part of the latter group as am I. There are a ton of places where I want to see tall buildings go up but not there....

if many of you (not saying you directly) had your way you probably would have dug up Central Park by now or suggested plopping a 1000 tower in the middle of Millenium Park..if some developer had proposed it before hand....if none did; the idea would have probably never crossed your mind. I don't need 'board cred' to discern that fact...
 
Last edited:

Back
Top