AstraZeneca/Alexion MXD Tower | 290 Binney Street | Kendall Square

B

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
4,068
Reaction score
10,551
Boston Properties is developing several parcels in the Kendall MXD between Broadway and Binney. These have been discussed in aggregate threads elsewhere on aB. In 2019 a thread was split off to discuss the residential tower at 135 Broadway. Here I am splitting off a thread for the towers at 250-290 Binney St., which are themselves a major project.

Updated designs for the 250 - 290 Binney St. tower were recently submitted in support of a February 23, 2022 Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) Design review meeting; listed here:

Kendall Square Overview — Cambridge Redevelopment Authority

Dive into Kendall Square’s transformation with CRA. From urban redevelopment to public spaces and affordable housing, discover how we’re shaping Cambridge, MA’s innovation hub.
www.cambridgeredevelopment.org www.cambridgeredevelopment.org

^Linked above are design review packages:
250 Binney
290 Binney

Here are some highlights:
bin_ct_1.png

bin_ct_2.png

bin_ct_3.png


bin_ct_4.png
 
Interesting design and materials... kinda retro, like '70s style almost, something that would've been built in Miami in 1973. It looks like faux wood patterning, which I can't recall seeing around, so that's...different...
 
Kendall has a real zoning problem when every building is proposed to the max, which is 250' plus mech. That's why everything in Kendall is stuck around 280'-299'. Volpe will have a bunch of these buildings too. It's a real lost opportunity, for aesthetic and otherwise, if they don't raise these limits. Frankly, there shouldn't be any limits at all in Kendall other than the FAA, and whatever the developers feel comfortable building.
 
Looking at the recent massing models they are taller than the plateau, but I agree they need to vary the height much more here overall. The volpe tower to the right appears to cut the middle between the tall residential and the new towers as well which is good.


7922EE8A-2C52-4A70-B1BC-45501E1611D9.jpeg
 
DZH22 said:
They're 250' + mech. They only look taller there because of their positioning.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case I think they are actually a bit taller than the plateau (if you zoom in on pg. 29, for instance, of the 290 Binney file), see here. Again the measurement annoyingly starts at below grade, but it looks like even accounting for that this one's 306' above grade (or even more, perhaps 315', if you account for the slope of the roof). I could be misreading it, but it seems that way to me.

Anyway, I care more about height diversity than the absolute height itself, and agree that this neighborhood really does need to mix it up a bit. In fairness, though, the Volpe site residential tower is not rendered correctly in that massing model (this developer has been using the same placeholder for years now). To me, the future situation we need to try to avoid is that row along Broadway of new Volpe site buildings that are presently rendered at the exact same height and massing. I recall MITIMco receiving feedback about diversifying that Broadway stretch, and as far as I know, those actual building designs haven't been proposed yet.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Actually in this case I think they are actually a bit taller than the plateau (if you zoom in on pg. 29, for instance, of the 290 Binney file), see here. Again the measurement annoyingly starts at below grade, but it looks like even accounting for that this one's 306' above grade (or even more, perhaps 315', if you account for the slope of the roof). I could be misreading it, but it seems that way to me.
Click to expand...

Good catch and I had only spot-checked the first file and saw the "250' + mech" near the beginning. The very tip looks like it should be around 320' comparing that sloping roof to the floors below, which at least puts the building a slightly-sloping roof above the rest of the Cambridge plateau.

Still, everything is a fat 300' and the only way to break up that massing at this point is to get some taller ones into the mix. The current proportions of the whole area are just wholly uninspiring. The demand is also so high that if you zoned a parcel for say a 900' residential tower, we'd get a 900' residential tower. Should have happened at North Point, and should happen here.
 
Yea they definitely are taller, you can see it better in the set. The tallest volpe tower is also halfway between these two and the new residential. So that would leave one new tallest, a new 2nd tallest, these two taller than the plateau and then a bunch of towers with the same roof height. Its a good trend in the right direction, lets hope this sets a precedent because until this point its become one flat buzzcut. I do wish the rest of the volpe site had more varied roofs.

That being said Cambridges skyline overall is a million times better than it was and appears to be trending in the right direction (for the most part).

0CFD248E-A1E6-4B22-AE48-94457AE16479.jpeg


C96DDB83-AD99-4863-A9E7-B190AD6AACAC.jpeg


0C1B2811-E263-43FA-847E-01C42BA1E2DC.jpeg
 
stick n move said:
Yea they definitely are taller, you can see it better in the set. The tallest volpe tower is also halfway between these two and the new residential....
Click to expand...

The tallest building at the Volpe site is supposed to be taller than this one. We should expect around 480' there based on the latest information. I think there might also be a second one at Volpe that will be at least mid to upper 300's. Let's hope that's how it pans out because right now it's a bunch of same-size monoliths and another possibly blown opportunity for something (a lot) better.
 
I like this design, but I'm not sold on twinning it.
 
gac108 said:
Interesting design and materials... kinda retro, like '70s style almost, something that would've been built in Miami in 1973. It looks like faux wood patterning, which I can't recall seeing around, so that's...different...
Click to expand...

That's it. (y) I'm calling these two buildings "Sonny and Cher". Right down to their bellbottoms.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
I like this design, but I'm not sold on twinning it.
Click to expand...

Yea, I agree there's some risk of "too much" here with the twin concept. I think, however, it could also create a really neat optical effect if the opposing slanty-ness (for lack of better term) is dramatic enough between the two. Then they could play off each other nicely.
 
Lab Space? In a tower? Why I ever...

Also says they are closing the Waltham Office too.
 
It feels like it wasn’t that long ago that they were blasting up a storm to expand that Waltham lab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top