Rose Kennedy Greenway

The article seems to be saying that Mayor Menino is trying to tell who builts what where? So I guess the Mayor is actually the new developer in town. What happened to his 1,000 foot Transtower which IMHO was the worst space to build a 1,000 foot tower.

Also the Pictures to Fan Pier Development look awfully, Hopefully the real thing looks better than what was proposed.
 
Bubbybu said:
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. 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 had your way you probably would have dug up 40% of Central Park by now or suggested plopping a 1000 tower in the middle of Millenium Park..I don't need 'board cred' to discern that...
Click to expand...

I think there is a very small minority of board members who love height regardless of location. But you are painting with an awfully broad brush in the post above. Most people who post here have an interest in seeing Boston become more cohesive, vital, and urbane. One of the guiding lights of this planning philosophy is the notion that density is beneficial to urban development. That belief runs counter to the planning principles embraced by postwar America. Unfortunately, even mayors of big cities are not immune to this prevailing philosophy. The article above smacks of the 'open space is good, buildings and density are bad', approach to urban planning.
 
if I was too general in aiming my complaints, I apologize but it isn't like Menino is trying to turn Boston into Houston....this city is one of the densest in the country
we are talking about one specific strip of land planned for one purpose, this isn't about Menino's grand philosophy of urban planning but about his philosophy for the greenway which is that height should be limited due to the function of the greenway.

if someone is against the idea of 'a greenway' then why have it at all? why not just use all the space to build new towers? I am using hyperbole of course but if the idea or function of a specific piece of land calls for one thing how can there be any middle ground? you either want an open greenway not turned into a canyon or you want more developed land..

if you say you do want a middle ground approach, then who is to say that the Greenway itself is not the compromise? As was mentioned Boston is one of the densest cities in America and with 'a more pure' greenway it still will be.

So you want a compromise but rather you want to compromise the whole entire idea...without seeing that the greenway IS the compromise to a growing highly dense city

so then a lot of you want to compromise the compromise...again just because it is possible ...just because a developer proposes it....just because you don't know how to say no to a new tower.
 
It should be about Quality and Design of a project and the city should hire a consultant to give you their best & worst case scenarios about the development ideas for the areas for the Greenway. The Mayor is saying you can't build anything Tall on the Greenway.

I did not know Boston was communist.
 
Really? You didn't know? Spend a minute here. Boston is not run in full-fledged classic communism, but we do have a strict socialist regime running the show.

If you don't like it, move to one of the states that has a growing economy, population growth and sparkling new development rising into the 21st Century - you know, one of the capitalist states in the union.
 
Let's cut to the chase...this initiative really affects only three or four parcels. Everything else along the greenway is either fully built out or protected as a landmark. And since the BRA treats every project as spot zoning and overrides the code where and when it chooses, why even bother codifying an overlay district? Even if the parcels (aquarium, gov center garage, Hook's) are limited to ten or fifteen stories as opposed to say twenty to thirty, it won't really change the nature of the Greenway. Whatever you may feel about them, One Financial, the Federal Reserve, the Intercontinental, Harbor Towers, 200 High, International Place, Russia Wharf, 200 State and the soon to be built South Station Tower, have already defined the urban scale of the greenway. And they ain't going anywhere. Just tell Chiofaro he can have twenty stories and be done with it.
 
That's a good one.

It seems in the article that the Mayor is shooting ideas down for the Greenway before they are presented. Developments that could add value to the city. He might be right about certain height developments in certain areas but to try to put restrictions and start stating negative terms about development on the Greenway before hiring anytype of consulting or engineer firms to add facts about the developments is completely unprofessional.

This clown has no open mind and it seems to be a puppet for a certain crowd.

Seems to me the Mayor and his adminstration have their own personal agenda.
 
TheRifleman said:
Seems to me the Mayor and his adminstration have their own personal agenda.
Click to expand...

Could His Honor's opinion of Mr. Chiofaro have played a role in his decision?

I believe the Gov Ctr Garage and Chiofaro's property are two perfect locations for iconic architecture -- whatever that may ultimately mean. Shouldn't we proceed with good design in mind and not a set of arbitrary rules?
 
yes! lets see some designs...

sick of all this theorizing and guessing
 
nm88 said:
Could His Honor's opinion of Mr. Chiofaro have played a role in his decision?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you are the first to mention this. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw the story.

In fact, I almost posted it in the Aquarium Garage thread.

Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight but this seems to be a shot straight across the bow of Mr. Chiofaro.
 
Agree 100%..... It's about the quality & design and how it affects the Greenway.
I think both Garages have great opportunity and should have some great developments proposed. I hope we do not see Box type buildings like Fan Pier proposal.


I believe the city needs more 21st Century architecture.
 
This is ridiculous. In my opinion they should at least see what the developers have planned before they deny their proposals. Unless there's a restriction in place due to flight paths, etc., they should deal with this on case-by-case basis. Why not suggest certain things like "if you're going to build tall, build it thin". A skinny 45-story tower should cause less shadow cover than a 20-story blob. If these buildings are being built directly on the Greenway, even 20-stories will do a significant amount of (shadow) damage.

I'm not saying we should build tall towers just to build them, I'm just saying first take a look at what they have to offer before blindly saying "no". If the developers are planning on building a 45-story stick with an entrance like Harbor Towers, deny it. But if the developers present a building that works well with its surroundings and can truly improve an area, then why should it be denied simply due to its height?
 
I think its misguided for the Mayor to focus on height. I would rather spend spend a few idle hours in Madison Sq. park or Bryant Park in NYC hemmed in by their "soaring" towers than the Greenway. Those parks are much more vital than the Greenway, shade and all. When I ventured into the greenway this summer, I was seeking shade to get out of hot sun. In winter, when some may seek the sun to warm up, not many people are going to be savoring the greenway due to cold weather anyway. I fear with all the focus on heights but not on horizontal scale, given high land and development costs, we are likely to end up with more monotonous horizontally oversized structures such as Druker's Shreve proposal or the Mass Turnpike's Parcel 7 Office/Parking Garage building at haymarket. Not a way to enliven the greenway imo.

The greenway is so wide, it needs some hemming in visually to feel like an urban place. Scale wise the worst part of the whole greenway is where it is surrounded by squat buildings (the garage near quincy market containing the Hard Rock) or open parkland (christopher columbus park). The best part, scale wise, is probably near the soaring towers of the International Place and South Station.
 
Ok you have Massport resrictions, The boston common/public garden restrictions, the shadows over landmarks restrictions, the zoning law resrictions,and now the greenway restrictions, Where the hell can I build in this city? And lets not forget about the Back Bay residents resrictions.
 
Bubbybu said:
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...
Click to expand...
No! NO! You did not just say a 40 story residential tower is a tall building. Seriously are you guys kidding? What is this, Providence? Hartford?! *smashes head into the wall. You know what, why don't you stop the construction of Russia Wharf? It's on the waterfront and it is 395 ft tall or around the same height as this and the Harbor Tower. I'm going to have to agree with some of the people here and ask, where else can you build this tower? You propose a tower in Back Bay and then there are people saying it is out of scale. You propose it over the Pike, and we have Mr. UFP against it. You propose it in DT and people say it will cause traffic, cast shadow on the Common, and put Boston in a permanent ice age. Here, where nearly every surrounding tower is around the same height if not taller, we get the, no it is a bad place to build a tower. How about this? Let's just stay stagnant.
 
Bryant Park in NY is a good example. Similarly, I like how our own Post Office Park is, in a manner of speaking, the meat in the sandwich in that neighborhood -- embraced by taller buildings. Almost hemmed in. It's a good feeling. And not one you find in a suburb.

Frankly, I don't care for TNT and don't want to see something that massive on that block.

However, the garages we've mentioned are a perfect place for some height. Even real height when it comes to the GCG.

I think most people would agree that the tall buildings along RKG are a benefit. They create the walls along the park. The embracing arms? If done well. Is that wrong? The RKP is certainly big enough that it can deal with a few shadows. We are a city after all.
 
nm88 said:
Bryant Park in NY is a good example. Similarly, I like how our own Post Office Park is, in a manner of speaking, the meat in the sandwich in that neighborhood -- embraced by taller buildings. Almost hemmed in. It's a good feeling. And not one you find in a suburb.

We are a city after all.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the NIMBYs. They don't know it and they won't admit it, but the things they say indicate they'd like the city to be more like a suburb. And they're able to sell their bogus nostrums and misconceptions to the "professionals", who should know better.

An outdoor room, much better than any part of the Greenway, and urban, not suburban:

0210.jpg
 
What a lovely setting. How can anyone who calls a city home not smile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top