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

Design review was just posted to Cambridge Special Permits site for a new building at Parcel R:
www.cambridgema.gov

PB-179

Special Permit Application, PB179
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov
Specifically, "PB179 Design Review - Parcel R"

Some highlights within above:
cc-pr-3.png

cc-pr-2.png

cc-p9-1.png


Within the above link, there are also many more views that show relation with the Green Line station/viaduct, as well as ground level...
 
Looks designed to align with the existing Sierra & Tango buildings. Someone informed about the zoning here may know if that was required for some reason.
 
DZH22 said:
Why do they continue to underbuild residential? In an essentially unlimited FAA area that should be 4-5 times as high with 3-4 times as many units.
Click to expand...
Might as well tear down the retail pavilion and replace it with a tower too
 
If you look over in that other thread about Aerials..............those aerial posted images are pretty uninspiring architecture in my opinion. I think this latest residential proposal just goes along with the rest of the bland architecture. It's NOT a bad area, but just very bland. As someone said multiple posts ago, the area reminds me of a German office park. I stayed near Arabella Park in Munich, and it looks very similar to Cambridge Crossing:

1651618126532.png


Cambridge Crossing
1651617928452.png
 
It was.

For anyone interested in reading my posts about heights and discussions with DivCo, my commentary is searchable in the thread.

In short, buildings step higher toward the train yards.

Yes: there is a City height limit, even at the tracks. It is (publicly) unknown if DivCo sought to build higher. There was talk - briefly - of a tower at one point, but that was long before the HYM plots got reformatted into the current ones.

I asked about increased density and height at many meetings with HYM and DivCo over the years. As someone well connected in this community, responses to my queries were that DivCo was more interested in extending Kendall SQ to the Lechmere and Community corridor: not height

Despite many of you wanting height, it was (essentially) never in the cards. The maximum height at this site, barring some unexpected significant shift, will be the fire monopole on Lot I - an apartment complex whose leasing office is seeing almost no traffic yet.

Look at the bright side: Years ago, Lot R was penciled for a 50-ft height. This will be a 60%+ increase: woohoo! :p


bigpicture7 said:
Looks designed to align with the existing Sierra & Tango buildings. Someone informed about the zoning here may know if that was required for some reason.
Click to expand...
 
ivyhedge said:
It was.

For anyone interested in reading my posts about heights and discussions with DivCo, my commentary is searchable in the thread.

In short, buildings step higher toward the train yards.

Yes: there is a City height limit, even at the tracks. It is (publicly) unknown if DivCo sought to build higher. There was talk - briefly - of a tower at one point, but that was long before the HYM plots got reformatted into the current ones.

I asked about increased density and height at many meetings with HYM and DivCo over the years. As someone well connected in this community, responses to my queries were that DivCo was more interested in extending Kendall SQ to the Lechmere and Community corridor: not height

Despite many of you wanting height, it was (essentially) never in the cards. The maximum height at this site, barring some unexpected significant shift, will be the fire monopole on Lot I - an apartment complex whose leasing office is seeing almost no traffic yet.

Look at the bright side: Years ago, Lot R was penciled for a 50-ft height. This will be a 60%+ increase: woohoo! :p
Click to expand...

I feel what it will take to really make CX really work from a maximal human experience / urbanism standpoint* is hemming in the park with buildings**, especially ones with decent ground level activation and with mixed uses. For instance, I like that this Parcel R building has balconies facing the park; such a feature signals that this isn't just a 9-5 lab corporate park. I have no problem with 7-9 story densely configured buildings lining a park. Such has a European city feel to it (e.g., Paris or Barcelona). But big gaps and blank spaces and monolithic lab facades kill that (note that elsewhere in Cambridge, the city is now asking lab developers to add balconies (or at least the appearance of balconies) to lab buildings to avoid what I'm describing). I do agree with others, though, that CX, overall, should be dense, including being tall in certain places both to boost density and add height diversity to the roofline so it doesn't appear so monolithic. But that said, I look at things from a neighborhood/overall development standpoint, not an every-single-building-standpoint....and I am OK w/ 7-9 story buildings lining a park if they are well designed.

*why would we care about a fluffy concept like this? Well, the people who live here are going to walk their dogs in that park no matter what. BUT, if you want people other than those who already must be here to hang out here and patronize the local businesses on their own volition, then the neighborhood has to compellingly feel like a place to hang out. For instance, passersthrough, workers, T station passengers, etc, need a reason to feel like "ah, we should hang out here." Creating this causes them to stay a while and spend their money, then we can fill the ground level retail slots, generate rent for those buildings, create new jobs in those ground level businesses, etc.
**And doing this is what will separate it from the German example @Java King posted above
 
Last edited:
The way to square this circle is apartment towers of 30+ stories which would make the area more permanently alive with residents and add height. You could mix them among the lab buildings and/or have them front the park and let the lab buildings deal with the emissions from the highways.
 
Java King said:
If you look over in that other thread about Aerials..............those aerial posted images are pretty uninspiring architecture in my opinion. I think this latest residential proposal just goes along with the rest of the bland architecture. It's NOT a bad area, but just very bland. As someone said multiple posts ago, the area reminds me of a German office park.
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy. It does remind me a bit of Glattpark in Zurich's Oerlikon neighborhood, where I spent a number of months. New buildings, contemporary architecture, (short) towers in the park ... but also not a terrible place.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Design review was just posted to Cambridge Special Permits site for a new building at Parcel R:
www.cambridgema.gov

PB-179

Special Permit Application, PB179
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov
Specifically, "PB179 Design Review - Parcel R"

Some highlights within above:
View attachment 24051
View attachment 24052
View attachment 24053

Within the above link, there are also many more views that show relation with the Green Line station/viaduct, as well as ground level...
Click to expand...
Alternating windows, 14 different facade materials, dead ground floor.
 
New design review was just posted for CX Parcel Q1/Q2; the Q2 building seems to be substantively updated:
www.cambridgema.gov

PB-179

Special Permit Application, PB179
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov

This is adjacent to the T station, across North First from the (also recently updated) Parcel R residential building
Building designs
Landscape/public realm design

To orient us:
cx-q1q2-1.png


A few highlights from the above posting:
cx-q1q2-2.png

cx-q1q2-3.png

cx-q1q2-4.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top