Hello avid Democrats. Thanks for all that you do at BMG keeping people engaged on critical topics about Massachusetts, and Boston in particular.
Following a year filled with hearings and public meetings on the Boston Common, I’m in the process of working up a report on our findings, including recommendations for making significant improvements on the Common. We have heard from so many people about ways that the Common can be better, cleaner, and safer, and I’ll be presenting a report to my colleagues in the near future.
At Boston Daily, I’ve provided a preview of a number of our bigger ideas from that report, and cleared up a few misconceptions.
Our major premise is that the Common will benefit as more positive activity is generated in the park.
The proposal that I’m most excited about is the establishment of a restaurant on the park. Our vision is a popular eatery that entices a diverse and vibrant crowd. When our Committee visited New York City, we saw two sites that were intriguing models for the Common: The Shake Shack at Madison Park, which serves $7 hamburgers and draws huge lines; and the Boathouse at Central Park, which provides a cafeteria, indoor and outdoor bar, and moderately priced restaurant, all with a great view.
There are several ideal locations for this establishment that will be presented in the report. We see great opportunity in this effort for improvements in the park, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. A restaurant provides benefits by increasing year-round, late-evening traffic on the Common, which has a positive impact on crime in the area, and helps reinvigorate the neighborhood.
Please let us know your thoughts and stay involved. We’ll let you know when we plan on having our next public working session on the Boston Common. Many thanks.
Mike
(By the way, while you’re visiting the Ross Report, be sure to check out some of my thoughts working in Florida doing voter protection for President-Elect Barack Obama and my experiences at the DNC.)
I think the Common’s fine the way it is, and my tendency is to agree with Kevin McCrea’s take on the situation. From what my parents tell me, it was much “dirtier” during the late sixties and seventies anyway.
But I will try to further consider the committee’s thoughts on it later on if I get a chance, so call this a preliminary reaction.
Thank you for your response. I walk around the Common all the time, because it is in my district. I pushed to start this Committee because I thought we could do better. After spending a day walking through several parks in New York City, now I know we can do better.
<
p>With all due respect, I disagree with Kevin. We face challenging times in the current economic conditions. Finding new sources of revenue that don’t place more on the backs of taxpayers is a priority. The businesses and residents in that neighborhood have the most to gain from a more beautiful Common, and we should be asking more from them. What’s the downside of that? There will never be a private entity that runs the Common. You can mark that down.
<
p>I hope you’ll keep an open mind, and let us know what you think.
and thus the subject of much possessive griping by members of the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association and so forth, I always imagined that the Boston Common belonged to the people of Boston at large. What of Kevin’s contention that Public Works’ budget actually went up this year? Are fiscal problems in the city so severe that we have to give up some control over/ relinquish responsibility for one of our oldest public assets?
I like to think of the Common as an embodiment of “free public space”, a truly democratic use of land where all people are welcome, and where people desiring to peaceably assemble (per the First Amendment) do not have to fear undue harassment by private security guards or city inspectors.
I worry that if the Common were “improved” into the sort of pristine, gorgeously manicured and antiseptic “public space” that you are talking about, such a transformation might also be accompanied by a forcing out of all those who lack the money and/or status to be considered aesthetically desirable users of the space.
That is: “Welcome to the Common- No Loitering”
The Boston Common is too historic to use as a source of revenue just because “we face challenging times in the current economic conditions”. You don’t change the use of a 400 year old public space because of an economic downturn a few months old. It’s just bad form, bad policy, bad planning.
<
p>I mean, come on. How much revenue are we talking about, at the cost of fundamentally changing the use of the park?
<
p>Want to argue that it serves an important need? Fine. Want to argue that it’s an improvement to the recreational aspect of the park? Go for it. Want to argue we need the few pennies in the city or state budget? No. You’ve got to think big — seven generations big — when considering changes to the park, especially ones which you know dang well would be almost impossible to reverse if they were providing a few bucks of revenue to somebody’s pocket.
<
p>P.S. If it goes through, do you plan on replacing those 1000-10,000ish square feet of open space somewhere else nearby? Why should we give up any more contiguous open space that serves a substantial human benefit to Bostonians? If you want a restaurant in a public space, go to Faneiul Hall — and while you’re there, see if you can’t get the vendors to stop creating so much non-recyclable/non-compostable waste.
<
p>
<
p>In the mean time, please don’t try to justify fundamentally changing the most historical, most important public park in the state to raise a few bucks.
using current open space to build more buildings? The common, in my mind, should remain just that: open space to be enjoyed by everyone, not built upon for the profit of a private business. it is disingenuous to compare nyc’s central park to boston’s common, since central park is much larger in comparison and perhaps can accommodate more structures. there are plenty of “eateries” directly across the street from the common and within a block of it. i see no lack of food available in the area. i really wonder at the mindset behind the idea of putting a building and a business on top of the little remaining green space left in boston.
The issue isn’t commercialism. The issue is bringing positive activity to the park. Whether it’s eating a sandwich, reading a book, or having a drink, positive activity in the common plays a positive role in the area.
<
p>I am not suggesting new buildings on open spaces. I’m suggesting restoring abandoned buildings that have been shut down for decades, such as the men’s comfort station. I’m suggesting putting maintenance facilities underground, and turning Deer Park into something that people can visit and enjoy. This will prevent the demolation of these buildings, and bring them to life.
<
p>As for eateries in Downtown Crossing, most close down after dark. By enhancing activity nearby, we can make a strong impact on the after-hours activity all across the neighborhood.
but how about restoring the “comfort station” as a “comfort station”? And putting maintenance underground sounds good too.
<
p>I agree with you (and disagree with Laurel) that there really isn’t enough food around there. The Tremont side only has some fast food places, and the other three sides are pretty barren of food, ATMs, Convenience stores, everything. Unless you want to go to No 9 Park, or know of pizza place around a corner, you’re frustrated if you looked for a place to get a bite to eat.
<
p>The hot dog carts are cool, but they seem to close up early and there aren’t enough of them, and there arent places to sit or wash your hands. Maybe re-open the rest rooms and have a nice patio with seats, and more facilities for push cart vendors?
Three questions:
<
p>1) Why won’t you make the draft report available so that citizens can comment on it? I know you are going to change it, but it would be good to see what you have come up with after the year of investigation.
<
p>2) What exactly is the legal status of the Conservancy, and why can’t the friends of the public garden get the local people and institutions involved? In other words, what can a Conservancy do legally that Friends of the Garden can’t?
<
p>3) Will you put in the language of the Conservancy that they will never receive any funds from the Public?
<
p>Thanks,
kevin
of a Conservancy. Is it true that you can’t hold a sign in Post Office Square?
<
p>I like the argument that it is a public park of Boston, and Boston has cared for it for 400 years, and should be responsible for caring for it forever.
Rather than deciding in advance what the one “best” use of a particular space or structure is, I’d strongly prefer changes meant to enhance the park’s flexibility, and availability for a wide variety of uses. For example, if there’s an unused structure, turn it into something local groups or people can “sign out” to hold their own events such as concerts, are shows, workshops, or whatever else they may think of.
<
p>Come up with ways to encourage people and groups to use the park in diverse ways, rather than coming up with specific uses you can put in place in a permanent way.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, per say, if a restaurant or store were allowed on the Commons, but I have a few concerns.
<
p>First, it would absolutely have to be in buildings that are already there and otherwise unused. Further, I think it would be important to see how those buildings would be altered and how many tables outside would be allowed, etc. Everything that would be added should be added in a way that improves the Commons, not the other way around.
<
p>Second, the issue of cost is important. Having a nice restaurant and a smaller stand type thing isn’t a bad idea. But, it’s essentially a government-improved monopoly, therefore begging some serious rules to be allowed. The stand would have to be affordable and the restaurant at least moderately priced
<
p>Third, some kind of a study should be done to see if these restaurants would have a dramatic effect on the surrounding area’s restaurants and stores, again because we’re essentially allowing a government monopoly of that area. Downtown Crossing’s revamp is, in the grand scheme of things, far more important to the economy of Boston. Would these stores and restaurants be so popular and desirable that they’d keep people away from the surrounding area?
<
p>Fourth, the Commons and Public Park are not only already pretty awesome, but also very well used. Things can always be improved, but this isn’t exactly a doom-and-gloom scenario. Cos’s suggestions above are honestly interesting; would it add to the use of the park more than restaurants and burger stands? Allowing a common-use space that could be booked by anyone for anything from an art show to a wedding party would truly be in the spirit of the Commons. It would almost be like the Commons 2.0.
<
p>Basically, this plot of land in Boston is one of the most important parts of the entire city. There’s a value to it that can’t be added up in dollars or cents, but only in how it’s used on an everyday basis – from a healthy walk during lunch hour to a Shakespearean play. No one should be afraid of changes to the park, especially if they’re not going to take away from its open spaces, but whatever changes are made should be in the spirit of a Commons. They should bring people together and be about a diversity of people and ideas. A restaurant and stand can certainly fit into that, but only if they’re in the character of the area and only if they’re as open and inclusive as the park itself. And we shouldn’t be so closed-minded to think they’re the only options.
Mike this is a great idea! If done tastefully this can generate some great excitement on the Common. Parks in Europe have cafes and restaurants in them and create a great feeling of city life at it’s best. Nothing wrong with taking a stroll through our Common with an icecream and seeing people enjoying a meal. We shouldn’t be afraid of our open spaces and modifying them a bit in an effort to create a use for everyone no matter what time of day. Times are changing and Boston is changing. This is Part of being a world class City that Boston has become known as!
there should be more ice cream vendors, hot dog vendors, etc. More patio seating, a comfort station. We don’t need a Conservancy to do that.
a first time for everything…
I continue to be impressed at and energized by the intelligent discussion that goes on here around issues of such importance for the City of Boston. Let me try to address a few points.
<
p>- We will have a report out in the next few weeks that consolidates the thoughts from our year on public hearings and working sessions. We will have a public working session on that draft, as planned, and will post that draft online for public comment. That report is just the beginning of our conversation, not the end. There will be a lot more to do, and much more to discuss in the weeks, months, and years ahead, and we will always go back to the public at every opportunity to get feedback. The report is not a series of items for the Council to implement. The Council will only be asked to accept the Committee’s report into the record. Putting together a plan for how the items in this report might be implemented would be a logical next step for 2009. That of course would include a very extensive public process.
<
p>- There will never be any private entity controlling the Common, and we will never allow freedom of speech to be limited. The City of Boston will always control that. I have heard your fears on this front, My colleagues and I are fully with you on this issue, and have been from the start.
<
p>- The idea of a mixed-use facility is interesting, but goes counter to what we are trying to do. The Boathouse in Central Park offers all kinds of public areas that are not closed off to people, but they have one big hall in the back for private bookings, which is the only part of the Boathouse that feels closed off to the public. We don’t ever want a situation where a facility is not available, where people of means could buy out the facility for a conference or a wedding. I want to bring a more open, more public facility to everyone. We already have the bandstand available for concerts and shows, but I would like to make it easier to use for those purposes, and your ideas on that are very much appreciated. Sitting at a table with a glass of wine or beer and a $7 hamburger, or a cup of coffee and sandwich, and taking in the wonder of our nation’s oldest park and our city’s greatest treasure, that’s the kind of great atmosphere that I think has a long-term positive impact.
<
p>- Thank you Ryan for so many great thoughts; they are very helpful. The Common gets good daytime use in the warm weather months, that is definitely true. What I want to do is figure out how to bring more evening and nighttime use, and some cold-weather use as well.
<
p>The Boston Common is not only one of, but is THE most important plot of land in the city. You can be assured that I am deeply invested in the importance of the Common to our history, to our City, to our environment, and to the look and feel of our neighborhoods. Everything that this Committee is proposing will be based on that foundation.
is selling booze legally really on the list of considerations? I’m no teetotaler, but I’m not so sure I like the idea of selling beer and wine in a park, even if consumption is restricted to a patio or somesuch.
<
p>I do like the idea of food vendors, either in 100% portable carts removed every day so we all remember they’re portable, or re purposing an unused building.
<
p>I submit the following things I’d like it to include/exclude:
* $7 is too much for a burger. Accessible includes being a bit cheaper.
* 100% compostable or recyclable content. This means silverware and plates made from sugarcane, corn, etc. This means having abundant and oft-serviced recycle bins for beverage containers. Make a statement that the impact of the restaurant on the beauty of the park — and the Earth — has been minimized. Also, more litter patrol please.
* Local foods please. I’m not sure what that means since I don’t know what restaurant will be there, but let’s try to get as much food served as possible to be produced within Massachusetts [or even a 500 mile radius].
* If a plaza is built for tables, can we please have permeable pavement? There are plenty of pavers which allow water to go through the cracks, helping to reduce the load on the city’s sewers, helping to recharge groundwater, helping to reduce on site erosion, etc. In fact…
* If the project involves a full renovation of an existing building, why not get the project to be LEED-certified, and go for platinum. LEED is the “green building” certification, and incorporates energy, water use, land use, material use, and air quality issues.
<
p>
<
p>I really think that it will be a whole lot easier to convince the public that this is a good project if (a) you add no new buildings to the Common, (b) you keep prices of food very low, (c) you make sure that the waste produced is minimal and doesn’t become litter, and (d) you make the buildings themselves as green as possible.