Greenway: The sky and the limit

Contrast that with points made by John Copley, who took an opposing view. If Copley is right that Chiofaro’s proposal “offers water views and access on 32 percent’’ of the frontage along the Greenway, compared to Rowes Wharf with only 10 percent, and that Chiofaro has offered “$50 million to expand the public realm of the Greenway,’’ which Copley writes would create an “unofficial Business Improvement District,’’ and that the project could “create a dynamic mixed-use space with direct contact to the harbor’s cultural assets,’’ then it’s time for the mayor and the developer to put their heads together and find a solution that moves this important project forward. As Copley notes, “this opportunity should not be missed.’’

Carl Gustin
Gloucester
The writer is a former chairman of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau and a former member of the Artery Business Committee.

FOR DECADES, my father advocated for the “high spine’’ in Back Bay, arguing that there was a place for tall buildings, but not at the expense of some of the critical features that make Boston a beautiful and accessible city. So here I am, in his stead, never as articulate and not an architect, speaking up for those decades of leadership by many in this city to preserve what makes Boston, to me, a livable city.

The Rose Kennedy Greenway still offers us opportunities to continue these ideals.

Building two skyscrapers on its edge would bring back the darkness of the elevated highway and the tunnel-like space of the Financial District (alleviated in a big way by the creation of Post Office Square).

There are many places where Don Chiofaro’s buildings would be welcome, but along the Greenway should not be one of them.

Ellen S. Sturgis
Stow
The writer’s father, the late Robert S. Sturgis, was former president of the Boston Society of Architects, and founder of the American Institute of Architects Regional-Urban Design Assistance Team.