Bostons Big Dig: The Wharf District

1
Bostons Big Dig The Wharf District
Megan Findley December 5, 2005
2
The depression of Bostons Central Artery Tunnel,
a project known as the Big Dig, has proven to
be one of the largest, most environmentally and
technically challenging infrastructure
investments undertaken in the United States.
Although historically familiar with large
land-altering projects, Bostons leaders and
constituents have struggled with this projects
completion. While expending great focus on
engineering, mitigation, and economic details,
consideration for the end result has been minimal
until now. Plans for the surface artery, the
stretch of open land created by the central
arterys demolition and relocation underground,
are currently at the forefront of public debate.
This paper will focus on the Wharf District,
arguably the most visible and controversial
section of the surface artery. Context
Bostons increasingly automobile-dominated
downtown in the 1940s prompted transportation
officials to begin envisioning various design
innovations. Public Works chairman William F.
Callahan conceived of building an elevated
expressway through downtown Boston, with enough
on and off ramps for the use of local traffic.
Begun in 1950, construction of the Central Artery
tore through the center of downtown Boston,
displacing 20,000 residents and removing over
1,000 residential and commercial buildings. In
addition to its unsightliness, the Artery divided
neighborhoods, and separated the citys financial
and historic areas from its waterfront. Although
community opposition failed to prevent a majority
of the Arterys construction, citizens succeeded
in opposing its component an inner belt,
Interstate 695, that would pass westward through
the city. The Arterys final section of
construction was sent underground through Dewey
Square, or South Station. Lack of support for
the Artery, and resultant deficiencies in the
regions transit system were important arguments
for the Big Digs inception. Because it was
built before the development of interstate
highway federal standards, the Artery expressway
had a number of design problems. Tight turns,
entrance ramps without merge lanes, and
insufficient capacity for growing vehicular loads
were just a few of its problems. Painted green,
the Central Artery quickly became known as
Bostons other green monster. In the 1960s
transportation planners began designing
alternatives to the Artery. M.I.T. engineers
Bill Reynolds and Frederick P. Salvucci
(Secretary of Transportation under Gov. Michael
Dukakis), came up with a plan to completely
relocate the artery underground. Official
planning began in 1982, and after five years of
extensive lobbying, Congress approved the public
works appropriation bill in 1987. Although
President Reagan vetoed the bill due to its
expenses, Congress overrode his veto and project
construction began in 1991. In addition to the
Arterys depression, projects included
construction of the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge and
the Ted Williams Tunnel, as well as the
restoration of Spectacle Island.
When completed, the Central Artery/Tunnel Project
will have created more than 300 acres of open
space. 27 of those acres will be devoted to the
Surface Artery, 75 of which will be devoted to
the open space string of parks called the Rose
Kennedy Greenway. These specifications and
guidelines for the greenways development are
outlined by the citys Boston 2000 Master Plan.
Designations for the Wharf District parcels
adjacent to the waterfront are made for open
space and parks.
Image shows Bostons highway systems the Central
Artery (shown in detail on the right) has been
buried. Construction of surface parks is pending
design approval
3
Land-Making From its colonization to present day,
Bostons landscape has endured continuous
alterations. From 1630 to 1850, the city of
Boston expanded the North End, South Cove, and
central waterfront shorelines through the process
of wharfing out. In more outlying sections of
the city, such as South Boston, Dorchester, East
Boston, and Charleston, wharfing out began later
and continued well into the 20th century.
Figures below illustrate Bostons expansion
during this time. (Light green represents current
landform)
making during the 20th century took place in
outlying sections of the city, particularly at
Columbia Point and in East Boston for the
airport. Previous to the big dig, Subaru Pier in
South Boston was the citys last land making
project, and was completed in the early 1980s.
Creation of the Rose Kennedy Greenway joins
Bostons long tradition of large-scale
land-alterations. Parks The incorporation of
parks into Bostons landscape has, since before
Olmsteds arrival in 1878, been a fundamental
concern of the citys planning. The construction
of parks provided a direct means for city
expansion, population density, economic
development, improved health, and city
beautification. Provided with an opportunity to
improve upon his work on Central Park, Frederick
Law Olmsted arrived in Boston with the goal to
permeate the increasingly harsh, dense, and
expanding industrial city with the healing
effects of nature. The emerald necklace took
root in the 1880s, beginning with the Back Bay
Fens and moving southward. The growing city has
intruded on portions of the necklace, but
Olmsteds parks continue to serve Boston as he
envisioned, attracting diverse populations and
bringing them together in the enjoyment of
nature. Continuing on after Olmsteds plans,
Charles Eliot and Sylvester Baxter initiated a
plan to encircle Boston with a second green
ring that would be emblematic of a metropolitan
political alliance. Their successful vision
consisted of 15,000 acres of public reservations,
thirty miles of river frontage, ten miles of
ocean shoreline, and twenty-two miles of
right-of-way for parkways. The legacy of open
space planning continues today with the Central
Arterys creation of more than 300 acres of open
space, 30 of which can be found in the central
citys fabric. For two decades, the Boston
Redevelopment Authority (BRA) has viewed the
citys surface above the Big Dig as an
opportunity to dramatically enhance Bostons park
system and to reunite the districts that were
torn apart in the 1950s by the construction of
the Central Artery. Olmsteds Emerald

Necklace has always been an incomplete loop
extending the Fens and the Charles River
Esplanade as a series of parks running through
the city over the Big Dig could extend the
Emerald Necklace, bringing it closer to
completion.
In addition to wharfing out, Boston engaged in
many projects specifically designed to create new
land. The 19th centurys burgeoning population
and introduction to railroads prompted projects
that expanded Bostons land area. Bostons South
Bay Lands and the filling of Back Bay were among
several of its additions. Following the
inauguration of the Boston park system in the
1870s, waterfront areas in many sections of the
city were filled to create public parks. Most
land
4
Waterfront The design, access to, and usage of
Bostons waterfront have been among the citys
fundamental concerns since its founding.
Although the harbors initially represented an
important conduit to the outside world,
perceptual awareness of the waters edge has
diminished over the years. Like many of the
nations industrial-era cities, the 20th
centurys decline in maritime infrastructure
resulted in a sort of ever-receding land-side
tide. Although the city was founded on a
virtual island, encountering water today often
requires a search. Construction of the Central
Artery reinforced residents cognitive separation
of the city from its eastern waterfront. In the
1960s, consequently, many of the historic
wharves lost their mercantile functions to become
parking lots. Present uses attempt to restore
vitality, but its the Central Arterys
demolition that will effectively foster the
allowance of reconnections.
Above wharves as parking lots in the 1960s (L)
and as they are today (R)
The adjacent corridors through State Street and
Quincy Market constitute a double axis through
which Boston has evolved for more than three
centuries. Once the site of the Boston massacre,
the Old State House now sits atop two subway
lines and rests securely amidst a ring of modern
skyscrapers - Bostons leading financial
institutions. With the Central Arterys
demolition, the view from the Old State House to
Long Wharf will be restored. Similarly, the
Quincy Markets, named after Josiah Quincy, the
citys mayor in the 1820s, represent Bostons
earliest waterfront urban renewal effort.
Faneuil Hall, rebuilt after a fire in 1761 and
doubled to its present size in 1805 sits at the
head of the original Town Dock, where Quincys
markets now reside. Historically designed in
conjunction with the waterfront, these areas will
again enjoy their original views and connections
once the Greenways construction is complete.
Few American cities can boast a richer palimpsest
of history than Boston, and nowhere is this
layering more apparent or complex than in the
Wharf District where more than three centuries of
history come together. Redesigning this area
represents an excellent opportunity to make both
connections and reconnections to reconnect the
city to the harbor, to contribute to and
facilitate a transformed experience of the city,
and to connect the past, present, and future.
Intimate understanding of this site is required
for a successful redesign where people of all
backgrounds may come together.
Left Views of the Old State House to and from
the Central Artery will be restored
Right layers through which Bostons financial
and historic areas meet the Central Arterys
Wharf District
5
Central Artery Corridor Master Plan The Boston
Central Artery Corridor Master Plan, designed by
SMWM Architects and commissioned by the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, provides a
detailed study of the surface artery, along with
a framework for the lands future uses. The
Master Plan is the result of an extensive public
participation process, including the input of
neighbors, city residents, historians, waterfront
planners, artists, designers, and state and local
officials. It created a set of guidelines under
which selected landscape architects would develop
parcel designs. Karen Alshuler, the San
Francisco architect who led the study, was
instructed not to challenge any rules set forth
by the environmental permit or zoning law. Thus
constrained, the master planning process produced
a least-common-denominator document that failed
to ignite any enthusiasm. The resulting design
did, however, challenge conventional wisdom in
one specific way for years, officials conceived
of the new corridor as a single boulevard through
the city. Rather than reinforcing the scar of
the elevated highway, however, the Master Plan
attempts to restore the built fabric of the
downtown. It divides the corridor into
districts, each with its own history,
architecture, and constituency. Encompassing a
total of 8 acres, the Greenways three new parks
are estimated to cost 26.2 million to design and
build. The four acres and four blocks devoted to
the Wharf District constitute the largest section
of the Greenway, with a cost estimate of 16
million.
Although many civic groups and coalitions lobby
for their own specific interests in the Surface
Arterys design, landscape architects were chosen
by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to design
the parcels within the guidelines set forth by
the Master Plan. EDAW of Alexandria, VA, and
Copley Wolff Design Group of Boston were selected
to design the open space between Christopher
Columbus Park and High Street. The design
process was expected to take about 15 months
(finishing early 2004), but landscape
construction has yet to commence. EDAWs
proposed designs are shown below. Three
schematic ideas form the templates from which
specifics will be assembled for the final design.
6
Civic Promenade Description

• Unified into a long green space
• Along west edge 40 ft. wide paved promenade
• Low serpentine wall for seating along promenades
  eastern side
• Series of retail kiosks placed at regular
  intervals along walkway
• Kiosks are triangular, pointed, glass-front
  structures 60 ft. tall they dually function as
  lanterns and visually mediate between the low
  park and tall buildings to the west. Their form
  is suggested by the towers of the new cable-stay
  bridge crossing the Charles River.
• Two center blocks are mirror images, the center
  street leading to New England Aquarium. Ground
  is molded to resemble a wave, with beach grasses
  planted on top.
• A pair of tall fountains, in the form of
  cauldrons or tall goblets, would feature rising
  and falling water synchronized with the ocean
  tides.
• Southern two blocks are combined into one, with a
  large fountain placed off-axis
• A street that ends at the east flank of the
  combined block is expressed as a diagonal path
  that lines up with the heroic west entrance to
  Rowe's Wharf.
• Heavy pedestrian use is expected in the park at
  the north end, near Faneuil Hall to the west and
  Marine Park to the east. This block contains a
  big plaza and a fountain that emanates from the
  pavement so that children can run through.
• The fountain's shape is a counterclockwise spiral
  inspired by the region's nor'easters.

Additionally, several private organizations have
commissioned separate planning studies for the
design of Greenway parcels. The Artery Business
Committee (ABC) took interest in the Wharf
District parcels this diverse group of
residents, office workers, owners, interest
groups and non-profit organizations prepared
their report to serve as guidelines for the
Turnpike Authority and its master plan
consultants, SMWM. In addition to creating five
principles for design and programming, the ABCs
report examines methods for enlivening spaces and
studies the urban form and physical/regulatory
framework within which the parcels sit. A
summary of their five guiding principles for
design and programming follow 1. Reinforce the
character of the Wharf District 2. Reconnect the
city with the harbor 3. Support and surround the
open space with people and activities 4. Create a
walkable and attractive environment 5. Ensure a
high quality and attractive public realm
7
Criticisms Despite the companys initial success
in winning the design opportunity, EDAWs site
proposals have failed to ignite enthusiasm,
respond to site-specific conditions, and
integrate all the various elements present in the
Wharf District Parcels. In a community
discussion led by the Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA), the commission which oversees
and approves greenway designs, EDAWs proposals
provided the template against which private and
public stakeholders re-examined the spaces
needs. Although discouraging, EDAWs temporary
failure spawned creative, enthusiastic responses
and ideas for the future. Robert Kroin, chief
architect of the BRA synthesized the Authoritys
views into a published format for the communitys
input. The documents main observations are as
follows
The blue band represents our waterfront
boulevard it collects and organizes the harbor
buildings, views, parks, and paths. The orange
band represents the urban artery it collects and
organizes the districts, streets, landmarks, and
places. The green band takes the Greenway concept
and makes it a reality that enhances the parks
system. All three of these bands come together at
the Wharf Districta very special condition. We
have to be able to see the Greenway as one park.
Likewise, we must see the Wharf District blocks
as one park. Each of the individual blocks must
refer to the larger whole, to the elements that
unite them. The Wharf District parks have to
relate to the city, the harbor, the park system,
and each other in a way that responds to the
dynamic nature of how we will experience them in
three dimensions over time.
The closer view of this district illustrates the
obvious its all about the harbor, because
thats what draws us here. The parks should
anticipate the harbor by allowing us to see,
smell, and feel whats in store at the waters
edge, as well as views back to the Boston
downtown skyline and layers of history present in
these views . The parks arent a substitute for
the waterfront. Perhaps the parks shouldnt be
destinations at all but rather spaces that
prepare us for the bigger experience. The
orange, blue, and green bands are time lines as
well as lines through space they bring us in
physical and visual contact with four hundred
years of history. The intersection of the three
bands illustrates the complexity of the Wharf
District. Things dont fall into neat patterns
and thats part of what makes it Boston. The
parks need to interpret this complexity for
usnot on brass plaques, but in their urbanism
and design.
8
The current design variations dont meet the
standards implied by these principles. The scope
is too small the design does not look very far
beyond their immediate parcel boundaries to an
integration with the other sections of the
greenway in a meaningful way that would help
unify it. The variations do not adequately
create connections between the city, the harbor,
and the parks and in some areas the designs
obstruct the connections. The variations do not
clearly relate to city or harbor its hard to
tell without the map which side is land and which
is water. They fail to respond to opportunities
for views of landmarks, notable features, and the
sea. The three design variations dont
consistently include the basic elements of
urbanismsidewalks, for example. While the
current park designs may provide space for people
to gather, they dont provide motives for
gathering that evolve from the site. At best they
make passing references to the underlying
principles that need to form the underpinning of
any design.
Views and view corridors are one aspect of that
complexity. The views include distant vistas,
broad panoramas, and fleeting glimpses. The views
arent static take a few steps and its all
different. They overlap each other. They
juxtapose land and water, old and new. Our narrow
downtown streets dont allow us to see the big
picture but the parks give us a picture window
and a way to understand our city. They show us
how the Wharf District is unique 3 dimensional,
changing experience that orients and re-orients
one to the complex relations that make up the
district. What a different city we see when we
look at the Back Bay from Commonwealth Avenue
Mall, for example, or East Boston from Piers
Park. Views are important because they connect
us to place and time they make history visible
and they make Bostons topography understandable
by revealing the shape of the peninsula.
9
Prior to the search for designers, Boston had
long received criticism for its lack of vision
nearing the projects completion. The failure of
EDAWs proposals therefore must be considered
within the context from which they were working.
Unlike most successfully planned-for civic
spaces, the surface artery greenway has been
somewhat of an afterthought to the projects main
focus. Although highly anticipated for its
potentialities, consideration for the greenways
design had not been given serious thought during
the projects implementation. Like an unknown
Christmas present hidden by dazzling packaging,
the greenway was collectively anticipated, but no
one could really say what it might look like.
Partly to blame, various stakeholders could not
decide who was to take charge. The artery was
owned by the state, administered by the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, and City of
Boston strongly desired involvement. The Boston
GreenSpace Alliance, Artery Business Committee,
Horticultural Society, North End Neighborhood,
and Chinese community all had their own agendas,
each with their own impression of how the land
should develop. Even the legislature had its own
opinions on matters without citizen input, the
legislature secretly dubbed the land The Rose
Kennedy Greenway. Key decisions about the
greenway were made nearly two decades ago at the
end of the Dukakis administration John
DeVillars, secretary of environmental affairs at
the time, had the right to approve or disapprove
the Big Dig. As a caveat to its approval, he
decided that 75 of the artery land must be
public open space, a rule that was later
enacted into a city zoning law. This number was
arbitrary, never debated, nor considered in light
of any designs for the land. It was a statistic
that unfortunately pervaded (and in many cases
dictated) all subsequent debates and designs for
the land, including the Central Artery Corridor
Master Plan.
As suggested by Globe Correspondent, Robert
Campbell, perhaps the greenways lackluster plans
are the product of our increasingly
participation-oriented society. When the Central
Artery was built in the 1950s, planning
decisions were determined without concern for
citizen reaction or approval. Today, decisions
are made in almost complete opposition to that
sort of top-down process. There are, of course,
numerous benefits to such organization, but
perhaps the complications coincidental with
required public participation inhibit the kind of
vision and risk required for large-scale project
successes. Alternately, perhaps Rem Koolhaas had
it right when he prophesized that, doomed is the
public realm, the space we all share, the space
where we come together as citizens of one
community for some better purpose than buying
things out of boredom. If there is truth to
this statement, then maybe Bostonians are caught
in the desire to produce a viable public space,
without the conventional shopping, anonymity, and
commercialization needed for such spaces to
succeed today. With numerous successfully-constru
cted parks already woven into Bostons fabric,
the greenway may represent a 21st century chance
to redefine the public realm in a way that not
only connects the physical elements of its land,
but encourages a unique form of modern civic
interaction. Without any guiding precedent, of
course, and without dictated leadership, perhaps
Bostonians are simply waiting for this type of
design to occur in a serendipitous fashion and
EDAWs designs just havent made it quite yet.
Money, finally, is a consistently rigid
barrier. After years of enormous increases in
the Big Digs price tag, the public has become
wary of further investments, much less transfer
of ownership. The subject is, unfortunately,
tiring and a bit blasé, despite the projects
near-completion. The debate concerning parcel
design, like many significant projects, is
fascinatingly real and frustratingly complex, and
the historical magnitude of this process is only
heightened by such difficulties. The entire
country anxiously awaits its culmination.
(Illustration by Keith A. Webb, The Boston Globe)
10
References
Altshuler, Alan, and David Luberoff. Big Dig
Projects Are They Worth It? http//www.ksg.harv
ard.edu/news/opeds/2003/luberoff_bg_032703.htm Art
ery Business Committee. Central Artery Corridor
Master Plan Completed. http//www.arterybusiness
.com/NEWSLETTERS/ABC20Report.pdf Betchel,
Parkins Brinckerhoff. The Big Dig Key Facts
About Cost, Scope, Schedule, and Management.
http//www.pbworld.com/news_events/press_room/resp
onse/key_facts.pdf Beyond the Big Dig
Recommendations http//www.boston.com/beyond_bigd
ig/forum/national_recommendations.htm Board
Members Chosen for Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy
Greenway Conservancy. http//www.massturnpike.co
m/user-cgi/news.cgi?dbkey123typeArchivedsrcne
wsarchive Boston Society of Architects.  Beyond
the Big Dig.  http//www.architects.org/shaping
_communities/index.cfm?doc_id81 Campbell,
Robert. After the Big Dig, the big question
Wheres the vision? http//www.boston.com/beyond_
bigdig/news/artery_052602.htm Dispute Over
Surface Artery Design. http//www.planetizen.com
/node/10689 Freeman, Alan. Above the Cut The
Big Dig selects landscape teams for three new
parks in downtown Boston. http//www.asla.org/la
mag/lam03/march/feature2.html Harbor Gardens A
Concept for Bostons Wharf District. A report
prepared with the wharf district working group by
Hubert Murray Architect Planner / Public
Placemeakers / Jung Brannen Associates.
http//www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/plans/abc/inde
x.shtml Is Public Space Dead?
http//www.vanalen.org/forums/public_space.htm Jh
irad, Susan. The Public Cost of Privatization.
http//www.commondreams.org/views04/1203-01.htm L
andsmark, Ted. Creating a Lively Space That
Engages Us All. http//www.boston.com/beyond_big
dig/opinion/artery_030303.htm Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority. Wharf District Parks.
http//www.masspike.com/bigdig/parks/wharfparks.ht
ml McCown, James. Boston Reconnecting.
http//www.architectureweek.com/2001/0926/building
_2-2.html McGrory, Brian. A Troubling
Downturn. http//www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/op
inion/artery_011703.htm Palmer, Thomas C. Park
Designs Surfacing Quickly. http//www.boston.com
/beyond_bigdig/news/artery_042003.htm Plans For
the Land. http//www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/pl
ans/ SMWM. Boston Central Artery Corridor
Master Plan. http//www.smwm.com/portfolio/proje
ctinfo.asp?projectId241395 Tuchman, Robert.
Wharf District Alternative Design Concepts.
http//www.cityofboston.gov/bra/pdf/documents/..5
Cpublications5CWharf-District-BRA-Response.pdf