Hey, there! Log in / Register
Greenway to be exempted from shadow-protection legislation
By shirley_kressel on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 3:13pm
Yesterday, I dutifully sent in my letter supporting the state House bill protecting major parks from overshadowing by beyond-zoning towers. Today, I find out that "a request was made" to exempt the Greenway from the protective legislation -- so that the BRA can proceed to legalize all those unlawful towers it plans to encourage along the Greenway corridor. Well, gosh, who might have made such a request? Perhaps Mayor Tom Menino, who is officially opposed to the bill, the same Menino who told the Boston Globe last September that we must not canyonize and overshadow the park? Perhaps he made the request in concert with Peter Meade, chair of the Greenway Conservancy created to care for the park, who happens to work for the PR firm representing the Raymond Company, proposing a tower project at One Congress Street. I just cannot believe the benighted governance in this city. And the power of a group of corporate lobbyists calling themselves a "conservancy," who insinuated their way into complete control over our public parkland by promising private funding but have managed to get, so far, $12.5 million in public money and have preempted the role of protecting the public space so that NO ONE CAN.
And this is not the first time the Greenway Conservancy sold out the park they were supposedly invented to protect. One of the Conservancy board members, Maryanne Suydam, was working for Equity Properties when it was before the Boston Zoning Commission to get approval for a 400-foot tower at its Russia Wharf project, near the Greenway’s southern parcels. A shadow study already had been done showing that the tower would block the remaining sunlight from those parcels; public comment letters were already in the file. Yet, Suydam testified to the Commission that there would be no negative environmental impact from the project. I pointed out that it would shade out the park. My comment was dismissed: “Shirley, you must be wrong. If there were a threat to the Greenway, the Conservancy would be here to protect it.” I said, “The proponent who presented to you is on the Conservancy.” The Commissioner shrugged, the tower was approved.
There were two reasons for creating the Greenway Conservancy: To socially sanitize the space for the abutting property owners (mainly, to keep out homeless people and political activists and fill it with nice shoppers and tourists), and to run interference against anyone or anything that would impede big real-estate development along the corridor. It’s all working exactly as planned. And the public is paying -- millions of tax dollars to fund the Conservancy’s bloated bureaucracy, for a park that should only cost a few hundred thousand to maintain.
If you have concerns, you should convey them to Jeff Mullan , head of MassDOT, and to State Rep. Aaron Michlewitz , who was Sal DiMasi’s aide when the Conservancy was empowered.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Really? But...
Why does this get its own post? Being an opinion piece, shouldn't this be a comment on the previous post on the shadow legislation?
For my money, this legislation is downright dumb an anti-green. Stunting Boston's growth, and hindering buildings in the core where all the transit access is - will inevitabely drive development into residential neighborhoods, suburbs,m and sprawl. More driving, longer commutes, less urban vitality.
And come on people, shadows don't hurt anyone. Ever. Under any circumstance. They provide relief in the summer and are inevitable in winter no matter how tall a building is. Compare shady Post Office Square and the open-sky Greenway when the weather is nice - which is a more successful park?
This measure is backwards, backwards, backwards. Not only because it will stunt economic development here, but also because it is so patently anti-green.
I agree, this really belongs
I agree, this really belongs in the other thread.
But since it isn't, we should probably use this thread to criticize Shirley's opinion masquerading as fact. She levels some pretty heavy assertions of corruption. I wonder if she has the evidence to back this up. If not, she could well be committing libel.
On the broader topic, the more the "I've got mine," folks wine and complain about a shadow here and there while the rest of us see our taxes go up in order to preserve her view, the more likely it is that people will begin to figure out what is going on here. Keep up the good work, Shirley! Keep whining about shadows -- it only demonstrate how large a gap exists between reality and your values.
The "greenway" is a glorified
The "greenway" is a glorified median strip interspersed with highway ramps, in the middle of downtown. Menino, a succession of governors, and the legislature did nothing to invest in a good park system (unlike mayor Daley in Chicago that got the amazing Millenium park done). Why after so much neglect and disinterest are people is having only low density buildings around it the answer. Pretending to care about great urban parks by passing sprawl-inducing laws like this is pathetic.
The only chance we have to make the rose kennedy median strip semi-interesting is to have a lot of activity (day and night, cultural and business) along it. And that cannot happen with low density.
If this poster really cares about making the 'greenway' interesting, why not petition the mayor and city council to push for projects like the Boston Museum (where the mayor favors high end condos) that will activate the greenway. Or better yet, get rid of all the highway ramps that chop up the 'greenway'.
You mean the Rose Kennedy Truckway?
It is very ill conceived as it is. It will not be successful until the suburban planning mentality that has resulted in its current design is abandoned. Forget about whether or not there are shadows, it's much ado about nothing and very few people could probably care less. This is a city and there are shadows from buildings, even in parks.
They should remove a few blocks of the Surface Artery and widen the park (IE remove the six lanes of highway traffic that currently impede pedestrian traffic between Quincy Market and Columbus Park). The six lanes of highway traffic that zoom through there now are anti-urban and still act as a significant barrier to the waterfront. They should remove one lane in each direction of the surface highway and add a light rail or trolley line between South Station, North Station and the Charlestown Navy Yard. That will go a long way to make the current truck bypass into an actual greenway.
Build a light rail or trolly
Build a light rail or trolly line? Did the internet create these people, or did it just reveal them?
I prefer monorail trains - until the new Star Trek transporters are in place. Of course, we could just give everyone entering the city a rocket back pack.
Buddy, please enlighten us as
Buddy, please enlighten us as to what is so outlandish about a freaking light rail or trolley line (both of which have served the city of Boston for years).
You think the internet magically created all the people responsible for light rail and trolleys in say, Portland/Seattle/Los Angeles/Phoenix/Denver/Dallas/[favorite sunbelt sprawler that somehow is less backwards thinking than progressive Boston]????
So you're providing the money
So you're providing the money personally?
waaa waaa, taxes are evil,
waaa waaa, taxes are evil, get yur hand outta my pocket sir!
Close one of the two roads bordering the Greenway
and turn the other one into a two-way street. Replace the closed road with a streetcar line.
With a bike lane
The car lanes are incredibly under-utilized and could easily be increased in capacity if the city bothered to *gasp* time the lights!
Meanwhile, they built a new surface transport facility that is completely without the bike lanes needed to carry traffic between North and South Station districts. Yes, there is quite a bit of it, too!
You do realize ...
That the original purpose of that corridor was to provide trolley service between North and South station, don't you?
Huh
Create what people? Me? I've been around here for a long time...
Shadows in the city
Perhaps Menino said "we must not canonize and overshadow the park?"
If you want sunshine, move to Oklahoma.
What criteria are used for "shadows"?
OK, dumb question. But really, I mean there are always shadows, at least when the sun is out. ;-)
What criteria do they use to determine "overshadowing" (the OP's terminology)? In the summer, the sun is higher, creating fewer shadows at mid-day. Right now, approaching the shortest day of the year, sunlight is hard to find in the city. And what time of day are they talking about?? This sounds incredibly vague.
Sounds like a bunch of people looking for an excuse to not build something in their backyard. Kind of like finding a "rare" frog to stop a development.
That's the key quesiton.
Shirley is part of a crew that wants to claim that if there are 15 minutes of shadows a day during one month out of the year, that should disqualify a potential building that is being proposed a full block (or is it two blocks) away from the Commonwealth Mall.
While Shirley whines about her taxes (on her multi-million dollar home), she then decries any potential development that would bring new revenue to the city which could potentially ease their taxes.
We need to build more parks. We need to do a better job protecting the parkland we have. Parks are critical to our city's future. But Boston must also find a way to be friendly to good development. There are plenty of good reasons to oppose developing on or near parkland. And there are plenty of reasons (which she brings up) to be wary of conservancies. But I'd hope we can do better than using shadows as our best excuse.
That may be true, but...
...stop calling her Shirley.
Isn't that her name???
The blog is signed by someone name Shirley - is that wrong, or a pseudonym?
Woosh!
I recommend watching the movie Airplane as soon as possible. It is crucial for cultural literacy.
Strictly an Animal House guy ;-)
If this person had called themselves Eric Stratton or Otter, I would have caught on. ;-) There's just waaaaaay too much culture out there to keep up.
Yeah, sorry. Should have
Yeah, sorry. Should have followed that with an emoticon.
Something tells me this has
Something tells me this has less about shadows on the park, and more to do with views from a luxury Condo.
Guess the rich can't be bothered to plan ahead, just to make sure they get theirs.
Embarassing
I am surprised that the bloggers here do not understand the negative effects of high rise buildings on The Greenway. There will be an enhanced wind tunnel effect; the shadow will create an urban canyon; the air and light and joy of the greenspace will be usurped by private development. (Go stand next to the John Hancock)
In case you do not know, the commercial real estate market is DEAD and will continue to be retracting. With the use of Blackberrys and Iphones, corporate use of office space is shrinking. The 78 Million Baby Boomers are retiring.
The developers want high buildings because THEY PAID TOO MUCH for their site. If they are not wise enough to invest properly, do you think they care about PUBLIC space and investment?
GET A CLUE??? Greenspace creates value. Residential or commercial property that has good horticulture is considered more valuable than without well-cared-for greenspace.
This is the end of era tha bigger or more is better! Look at Dubai!
Wake up? Smell the roses? Oh, I guess this group does not do that...too bad. They are missing so much about life and urban improvements.
What I find "embarassing" is...
that you think "horticulture" is an excuse for sprawl. It's your turn to wake up, anon. It sounds to me like if you aren't already living in Newton or Wellesley, you should be. Enjoy destroying our air quality with your car exhaust, and getting obese behind the wheel of your SUV. But for those of us who want to LIVE green, as opposed to driving into the city every now and again and admiring a wind-free shadow-free strip of green space to ooh and ahh at, we who actually give a damn about sustainability would rather have dense mixed-use communities with a dense transit network to get us around without a car.
Another thing about your argument which is insane: "Greenspace creates value. Residential or commercial property that has good horticulture is considered more valuable than without well-cared-for greenspace."
Really? So why is it that the most valuable real estate in the world is in the most dense places? Tokyo, New York, San Francisco, Boston... whereas the places that have suffered the most from the recent recession are precisely those cities which you seem to think Boston should emulate: Phoenix, Vegas, any city in Florida... all those places have tons of open space and very few shadows, and yet their economies were built on real estate speculation more than on any other solid foundation. Get a grip on reality, anon. Even if you don't want to live with shadows and wind and all the smelly people who ride public transporation, there are still many many people who are keen to live in dense urban neighborhoods, in which the park is a source of vitality and human warmth even in winter months (go to Bryant Park in NY for example) - rather than in sparse districts where sprawling "sunny" parks are cold hoticultural museums that are depopulated even in the summertime.
Bravo, well said.
Bravo, well said.
In my opinion (< a statement
In my opinion (< a statement that needs to be used more often by people such as the OP) most of the greenway should have been divided up and resold for development. It is in the end a large strip of space cutting through and dividing what was the center of our city.
As it has to stay, there are still many, many issues that need to be addressed. The park is completely over scaled as compared to its closest counterpart: the comm ave mall. There is no continuous path system which discourages people walking through the park in any way then to get from one side to the other. It is also severely lacking in something that is necessary for the type of park it is (not athletic fields): trees to provide SHADE. No one wants to sit in the scorching sun in the summer, and this doesn't matter in the winter as trees loose their leaves. In the end the greenway looks to be exactly what it is: a vacant lot in the center of our city. Sculpture, lawns and curving paths to nowhere don't cover up that simple fact. Greenspace does nothing but ruin the urban fabric that is so necessary for cohesiveness within the city center.
Food for thought: if the air rights over the new tunnel and ramps were sold off for mixed-use development with only key places kept as parkland how much of the big dig cost could have been recouped?