Cambridge Crossing (NorthPoint) | East Cambridge/Charlestown | Cambridge/Boston

Rover said:
I can live with the architecture here. Took forever to get this project off the ground and I'm not sure taller buildings were an option since neighborhood NIMBY'S went to the mat trying to get the old courthouse torn down for being too tall a few blocks away. With all the community payouts and linkage fees usually associated with building anything around here it's tough to expect the Taj Mahal out any large scale project.
Click to expand...
I agree. They did what they could do given the constraints of economics and NIMBYs. Cambridge, and for that matter most locales in the metro area, are very tough acts to deal with.
 
Plus none of it is finished and it looks ok in the renders. The buildings are in that spot where theyre finished enough that ppl feel they can judge the final result, but theyre only half assed and not at all a reflection of whats to come. One has 0 cladding one has 0 windows, theyre only going to get better from here.
 
theSil said:
Seems like funny logic. More needs to be happening at higher levels government, sure, but that shouldn’t absolve smaller actors of trying to do the most that they can (especially since I don’t believe density must be seen as a burden, but that’s a separate argument).

If I were a planner with the city of Cambridge, I would recognize that the Boston MSA is in dire need of more housing and that this area represents an unmatched opportunity to make a dent in the problem. To analogize, should states not bother trying to legislate carbon emissions and leave it up to the federal government, since its obviously a national/global problem? I’m certainly glad that states step up to do more when our federal government fails to do so. Similarly, if I were a city planner I would feel a responsibility to do the most that I can to dampen the effects of a housing crisis that the region is failing to address.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to explain my logic here... because it's data-driven.

According to available census data for the region (more data available here), the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) grew 7.0% between 2010 and 2019. While the MSA includes some 114 municipalities, the 2030 regional housing goal(s) were identified by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), which officially is 101 municipalities and does not extend to Worcester. So for argument's sake, lets say that the regional housing goal affects the 101 municipalities.

If 7.0% is the regional growth rate over the last 9 years, this means there are two camps of communities in our region: those that are housing more residents than the regional average, and those that are housing fewer residents than the regional average. Here's an imperfect list of the municipalities just inside Rt. 128 and how they stack up on this during that time period (numbers in bold are higher than regional average):
  • Cambridge - 13.1% growth
  • Chelsea - 12.8%
  • Watertown - 12.6%
  • Boston - 12.1%
  • Everett - 11.5%
  • Swampscott - 10%
  • Lexington - 7.4%
  • Somerville - 7.4%
  • Beverly - 6.8%
  • Belmont - 6.5%
  • Winthrop - 6.0%
  • Wakefield - 5.9%
  • Arlington - 5.1%
  • Salem - 4.6%
  • Lynn - 4.4%
  • Melrose - 3.8%
  • Newton - 3.8%
  • Milton - 3.6%
  • Waltham - 3.1%
  • Revere - 2.5%
  • Quincy - 2.4%
  • Medford - 2.1%
  • Malden - 1.7%
  • Brookline - 1%

According to the data, literally no other community in Metro Boston (core) has done as much to add housing and accommodate population growth as Cambridge has since 2010. Planners in Cambridge have been internationally recognized for their pro-growth, equitably-considered, progressive, economically-sound, and naturally sensitive planning work in a way that most American communities fall short.

If you want to pick a fight with the communities that aren't pulling their weight to accommodate new housing or grow in a regionally-significant way, I've got a list right there with some ideas of where to start. But at the end of the day, you also need to remember that it isn't planners that build new housing: it's developers. And if you really want to get into political finger-pointing, consider the implications of having a person more qualified for brain surgery than land use policy-making being in charge of the Department of Housing and Urban Development... Baker Administration has made some strides in implementing policies that will make a dent in housing growth/affordability, but at the end of the day communities are not getting much guidance from their state and federal policymakers to make land use decisions.

And one last thing on the affordability front: I invite any height fetishists among this forum to show me a single 600'+ residential skyscraper in the United States that is 100% affordable housing and single-handidly solved all of it's region's housing woes. Prove me wrong, but when you factor the cost of land, union labor, construction materials, code enforcement regs, insurance premiums, and public utility demands on concentrating that many people on a single parcel of land, I think it's an oxymoronic pipe dream to call that affordable. Also... find me a single 600'+ research/laboratory skyscraper in the United States that isn't Stark Tower or OzCorp in the Marvel Cinematic Universe... they're not real.

Cambridge Crossing is a good development among many new developments--leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
^ This is great post, thanks @dshoost88! If folks want to dig into this data more from a regional housing perspective I'm going to copy this over to the Housing thread.
 
curcuas said:
It takes severe galaxy brain *cough* Cambridge planning *cough* to decide that the retail shouldn't be on the ground floor of buildings but instead in independent mini pavilions.
Click to expand...
I can see the pavilion idea working, actually. If you want to stimulate an active use of the paths, connect them to varied destinations that draw people equally from the housing/commercial buildings. I expect a fair amount of ground level activation from the design. What I don't like is the lack of well defined street walls and buildings of fairly boring design.
 
Rover said:
I can live with the architecture here. Took forever to get this project off the ground and I'm not sure taller buildings were an option since neighborhood NIMBY'S went to the mat trying to get the old courthouse torn down for being too tall a few blocks away. With all the community payouts and linkage fees usually associated with building anything around here it's tough to expect the Taj Mahal out any large scale project.
Click to expand...

Thanks, @Rover .

I have lived here for almost eight years. During that time, most folks didn't have a clue who owned the development, what was a part of it, what was planned, and what was "coming soon!" until DivCo added transparency to the mix.

Regarding height ... there are a few folks in CX who have mentioned height negatively during my tenure, but honestly: had DivCo seen a benefit in building skyward, they would have and most residents would have merely said, "wow". That's the general reaction I have heard regarding Lot I's monolithic core.

Remember: several of these structures were linked to tenants much sooner than expected (Lots G, H, and U), despite detractors suggesting DivCo would build a bunch of empty structures and then leave. And the developer is building what is in demand among (mostly, stereotypically) upper middle class urban professionals and their employers: contemporary open work and lab space, non chain dining, green space, and semi-luxe residential. I have reviewed documents back to 2004: regardless of what could have been built here, my study revealed no one (formally) ever pushing height beyond 350', IIRC.

Beyond that, I have read waves of criticism regarding the park, and even the site's total footprint and its corresponding general lack of density. Judging from how many folks use it year round, and even now with COVID-19 and snow, I think there's a sour grapes mentality at work. Surveys have shown that one thing folks absolutely adore about Northpoint, and now CX, is the park (and, more recently, how DivCo is building sub park spaces around the new tenants). Residents, their guests, and plenty of folks from nearby communities (Museum Way, Glassworks, AVA, Zinc, One Canal, One First, Point 262, etc) use the facilities. Absent COVID it can actually get rather packed.

I've never been a NIMBY, and I do have a predilection toward supporting height: but with such positive support among end users for what's here, and (most) criticism relegated to internet forums, I posit that it's working well. And that's the point.
 
Regarding the park - I was there Friday afternoon/evening, and there were a number of parents w/children sledding, as well as a decent number of people out with their dogs(looked like they all knew each other). Seemed like quite good utilization for a day of below-freezing weather, on one of the shortest days of the year. I fully expect that once COVID is no longer a concern, the summer concerts in the park will be back, drawing their large crowds.
 
@dshoost88, that’s a great illustration that Cambridge is doing more than neighboring communities to build housing. But that doesn’t really respond to the point I was making. If Cambridge had had a growth rate even higher over the last 9 years, would we say the city is off the hook and doesn’t need to realize the best possible outcome for the site? Maybe put a drive-in theater here? Of course not. To the extent that there is still a housing shortage in the region, their strong growth rate relative to peer cities has nothing to do with maximizing this site’s utility.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. We have this hugely desirable thing we want to maximize: housing that is within walking distance or a short transit commute to tens of thousands of jobs. We’re given a site that generally lacks the constraints other sites have: There aren’t real fears of overburdening the surrounding transportation network, there aren’t real fears of gentrification and displacement, and pesky FAA height limits hardly have to be considered. Re: your comments @ivyhedge, the developer is building to the maximum height on every parcel here, which indicates to me that they believe demand to at least meets the zoned capacity, and would’ve gone higher if allowed.

My sole point is that there is a plausible alternate universe where Cambridge allows more here, and in the near future we’d have a few thousand more Cantabrigians who would get to partake in a greener, more urban lifestyle in a uniquely great city.

(Following up in this thread, and not in the Housing thread because I feel like my argument is focused on this particular parcel and not on muni vs. muni housing production, but feel free to move @George_Apley).
 
curcuas said:
Porque no los dos?
Click to expand...
My own thought on this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I suspect doing both would cause people to focus only on the retail and restaurant space in the building they are already there to use, rather than heading off to the pavilions. My theory is that the pavilions drive a greater pedestrian presence right at the point of sale, and any other retail would detract.
 
ivyhedge said:
Thanks, @Rover .

I have lived here for almost eight years. During that time, most folks didn't have a clue who owned the development, what was a part of it, what was planned, and what was "coming soon!" until DivCo added transparency to the mix.

Regarding height ... there are a few folks in CX who have mentioned height negatively during my tenure, but honestly: had DivCo seen a benefit in building skyward, they would have and most residents would have merely said, "wow". That's the general reaction I have heard regarding Lot I's monolithic core.

Remember: several of these structures were linked to tenants much sooner than expected (Lots G, H, and U), despite detractors suggesting DivCo would build a bunch of empty structures and then leave. And the developer is building what is in demand among (mostly, stereotypically) upper middle class urban professionals and their employers: contemporary open work and lab space, non chain dining, green space, and semi-luxe residential. I have reviewed documents back to 2004: regardless of what could have been built here, my study revealed no one (formally) ever pushing height beyond 350', IIRC.

Beyond that, I have read waves of criticism regarding the park, and even the site's total footprint and its corresponding general lack of density. Judging from how many folks use it year round, and even now with COVID-19 and snow, I think there's a sour grapes mentality at work. Surveys have shown that one thing folks absolutely adore about Northpoint, and now CX, is the park (and, more recently, how DivCo is building sub park spaces around the new tenants). Residents, their guests, and plenty of folks from nearby communities (Museum Way, Glassworks, AVA, Zinc, One Canal, One First, Point 262, etc) use the facilities. Absent COVID it can actually get rather packed.

I've never been a NIMBY, and I do have a predilection toward supporting height: but with such positive support among end users for what's here, and (most) criticism relegated to internet forums, I posit that it's working well. And that's the point.
Click to expand...
The park is amazing. Love walking through it with my dog. I think it’s particularly impressive with they’ve done with that little stream that flows from the cascading waterfall.
 
I too would like to see more height and density here but that would require that 1) NIMBY'S don't exist, or 2) they have no political power. As pro development and anti development forces have both managed to elect allies what we're left with is the compromise you see here.

The other point is that somebody is always going to bitch about something. Cambridge has done a great job building dense housing by Alewife but check out that thread sometime for an example of what I'm talking about.
 
Rover said:
I too would like to see more height and density here but that would require that 1) NIMBY'S don't exist, or 2) they have no political power. As pro development and anti development forces have both managed to elect allies what we're left with is the compromise you see here.

The other point is that somebody is always going to bitch about something. Cambridge has done a great job building dense housing by Alewife but check out that thread sometime for an example of what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
Alewife is grim.
This looks pretty cool so far.
I'm not bothered that they are not going higher. I like the gradual height from the zinc building, up through Cambridge crossing, on to the new north station buildings, on to the new state street building and on in to down town.
By summer 2022 (christ, that's only 18 months away) when this is all built out and the community path feeds in to it from the north as well as the existing links, that park will be a hive of activity that will drive a lot of permenant and temporary retail and service industry in the area. If they redevelop the Cambridgeside area and old Leechmere station properly, this area could become a real hub north of the Charles.
As for housing, I've no idea how much is affordable but it seems to be one thing Cambridge city does better than most, hopefully the old jail gets converted soon, that whole area is about to boom.
 
I've been impressed when sitting in the park that the CR maintenance noise doesn't really reach the park. My assumption was it was the massing of the Phillips building and the distance. Any acoustic engineer want to tell me if there will be a noise echo down the canyon every time a GL train goes through?

Also - I saw above the mention of a bike path connection to the Northern Strand. What is the preliminary thought on how these might connect? There is a direct path under 93, but lots of truck traffic. Is the connectivity going to be across the Prison bridge to Rutherford? North side with Washington street?
 
Vagabond said:
Also - I saw above the mention of a bike path connection to the Northern Strand. What is the preliminary thought on how these might connect? There is a direct path under 93, but lots of truck traffic. Is the connectivity going to be across the Prison bridge to Rutherford? North side with Washington street?
Click to expand...

Best resource for that would be the Feasibility Study performed by Alta for the Friends of the Mystic to Charles Connector. More info on their website. The Northern Strand extension from West/Wellington Street south to the Mystic River (ending at the Encore Boston Harborwalk) allegedly began construction this fall and is due to open next year. The shared use path bridge over the Mystic to Somerville/Assembly Row is designed and would connect with the MC Connector via Mystic River Greenway one day.
 
96506BAE-B4DB-4C4B-9C62-E5FB9EAFFD04.jpeg
0EA0A387-73D6-4DD9-A349-1EBA79760543.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top