From the Boston Globe:
Along with more art shows and theater events, Boston Common could have a new restaurant, with indoor and outdoor seating, under a proposal released last night by a City Council subcommittee.
The addition of a restaurant would be a first for the oldest park in the country, and the Special Committee on the Boston Common said an eating establishment would bring more people to the civic space and keep them there, helping to deter crime. The committee also recommends improving the overall scenery of the park.
"Many people will be willing to enjoy a sit-down meal, returning time and again, with the ability to enjoy a drink with their meal," the report states.
The report hints that the lack of beer and wine has hurt the concession stand at Frog Pond and the Emerson College cafe, which is performing poorly, but it does not specifically endorse a beer and wine license for the restaurant.
A spokesman for the committee was not available to elaborate last night.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino would not support a beer and wine license, spokeswoman Dorothy Joyce said. She said that the mayor is willing to discuss proposals to better the Common, but that he does not want to see alcohol near the playground or Frog Pond.
The restaurant is one of several committee proposals to reinvigorate the park, which is suffering from a lack of maintenance and has been marred by recent violence and the presence of homeless people in the area.
Other proposals include a dog park, fences to protect the grass, and improvements to the visitors' center.
Henry Lee, president of Friends of the Boston Public Garden, said his group would support the committee's report because it will spark new interest and investment in the Common.
Lee joined city officials on a recent trip to view parks in New York City, and said his group has proposed a version of a high-end, fast-food shack near Brewer Fountain off Park Street. Though costly, Lee said, the proposal is worth discussing.
"They're bringing attention to a need, and that's a great value," Lee said. "The Common is the center of activity, always has been, and always will be and should be."
......
My Comments:
This should not be surprising. It's the sort of thing that comes from committees, usually a product of either boredom or bright ideas. "Hey, maybe we could build x". the problem is that it's the kind of object oriented planning that focuses on the idea itself, rather than the surrounds, and really, the problem. For a primer on object oriented thinking, see Matt Frederick's book Copernicus goes to Suburbia.
The problem with the Common is that it's been co-opted by years of bright ideas from civic leaders, to the point where it's not clear to anybody what should or should not be there, and what it is at all - a natural park, or a mixed use public area.
Historically, the 'Common' was a common grazing pasture. Eventually, portions of it got developed (the original common extended over the hill to King's Chapel). And for most of the city's history it's been a naturalistic park. see the Wikipedia article on Boston Common. Over time, however, incremental changes have been made, evolving the common into what it is today.
Unfortunately, the focus is on the next bits and pieces under consideration, instead of a thoughtful review of what makes the park great, and what does not. My take is that its greatness comes from its historical purpose as a common grazing and assembly area, primarily undeveloped. It's perhaps the only thing that differentiates it from other major urban parks. I've always thought the Common was a perfect, natural complement to Olmstead's heavily landscaped Public Garden, and that the modern facets of the park - ballfields, parking garages, etc simply distract from that. What the city should do is clean it up by making the walkways, plantings, and other materials consistent across the park, improve the quality of existing features and structures, and police the area effectively. Then, consider any improvements that fit in with a responsible master plan (no superstar landscape architects, please!)
The globe article shows the lack of agreement about what if anything should be built there. Some want a restaurant, those people being divided into two camps; the Friends of the Public Garden who want a 'Shake Shack' ala Madison Park in Manhattan, and a city council subcommittee wants a 'Tavern on the Green.' I have to admit, either could be good or bad. It's not so much what you stick in the park, but how it's done.
My response below summarizing the issues was posted on Boston.com
That's the real problem. It suffers now from being pulled in too many directions. Different and incompatible types of paving, curbing, and fencing, inoperative fountains, obtrusive parking garages, ugly ballfields, poor law enforcement, and many different events.
This casualty taking place is been death by a thousand cuts. Just adding more stuff isn't going to make the common better. It's going to make it worse. If the city decides to do more in the park, or less, fine. But they need to eliminate the ugly sores by revisiting and repairing the entire park, or it's going to be awful no matter what.
My opinion on the specific proposals is that the common, historically, was always a naturalistic park- first a common grazing ground, then a landscaped park. So the concept of public open space is part of Boston's historic identity. As such, additional development is going to debase the common's character, so we need to really tread wisely. I don't think anyone wants a park like tivoli in copenhagen.
I recommend the city add nothing. But that being said, the Shack shack in madison park is outstanding, and also doesn't overwhelm the park. Something like that in terms of scale and quality would be acceptable. A larger restaurant is a bad idea. Central park has two, but also has over 800 acres. A restaurant at park street, other than a 'shack' would be too much. I think most would agree the concession stand at the frog pond is properly sized.
Mike Mullins
Charles St South
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment