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

Earlier today from the Longfellow:
CX_Longfellow 1.jpg

CX_Longfellow 2.jpg
 
The uniform height of pretty much all the buildings in this development and also out at the Alewife area is a bugger. Cambridge should have a zoning requirement (too late now) to require varied heights.
 
George_Apley said:
I get that it's fun to degrade urban developments by comparing them to suburban developments, but there's absolutely nothing in East Waltham that comes close to Cambridge Crossing.
Click to expand...
What I am suggesting is calling Cambridge Crossing "urban" is an abuse of that word.

Many of the photos of the site look like they could have been snapped from a car on 95/128.
 
Ok, honest take from someone who is frequently nearby and walks through there semi-regularly:

1) Urban spaces draw you in, even if - actually, especially if - you don't pay money to be there
2) Urban spaces make optimal use of the space, coveting space as a precious resource
3) Urban spaces make diverse use of space
4) Urban spaces provide everything you need within walking distance
5) Urban spaces are future-facing: they provide opportunity for "whatever's next" to organically materialize within them
6) Urban spaces are not "all about business"; they are about living as much as they are about business

I am not an urban planner and respect the vastly more qualified perspective that dshoost and others have provided here. My highly unofficial and opinionated conclusion is: the jury is still out on this one, but things are not trending in a "this is great urbanism" direction; yet, there might be hope. Here me out, with the caveat that all of this is based upon "at present":

1) The central park is great. It's a semi-destination. However, with the exception of the snack shed (sorry, calling it what it is), the park is completely surrounded by unwelcoming blank glass walls, wide/expansive front entry patios, etc. All's not done yet...missing buildings will close in upon the park, better linking the park to its surroundings...and numerous vacant retail stalls will engage those in the park. None of this is there yet. What remains to be seen is whether formulaic chain retail is all that goes in here, or whether interesting local businesses move in.
2) I think this is a no / not yet. What's there now is based on near-term profitability for the developer, not long-term optimization for the population as a whole. Can't blame the developer; this is what zoning and planning are for. Will the planned but unclaimed parcels help change this?
3) Not yet. Not even close. However, not impossible in the future if enough people care...
4) Not yet. However, not impossible in the future if enough people care...
5) Not particularly; most of the buildings are specific-purpose-built biotech or residential. Then again, people can get creative with repurposing spaces.
6) Not yet. There's a half-hearted attempt, but it's not fleshed out.

So, there's reason to be hopeful. There's also reason to keep our standards high and not conclude this is good/great as-is.
 
Last edited:
This will be totally different to a suburban development.
That park will be full of life because there'll be a lot of people living there.
A lot of people who live there won't have cars.
A lot of people in east Cambridge but not Cambridge crossing will use this space.
If the GLX path is a success this place will become a hub linking Somerville to the Charles and down town.
I live in east Somerville and the thought of walking or cycling in to the city now is pretty off putting at the moment. Doable but not enjoyable. This should change that.
Yea, they are big glass boxes but they already have good tenants.
The only issue I see is employees of Sanofi or Phillips who want to drive in are in for a rude awakening when covid lifts and traffic starts getting back to normal. Oh well...
 
I will withhold final judgement until all the pieces are complete. It is missing some key elements to success right now, including GLX, the path, and likely McGrath Highway on a diet (to connect with East Cambridge better).

McGrath on a diet and the path are both big question marks. That flyover rail bridge on the path looks like a deal breaker! And without serious re-engineering of McGrath, it is a huge psychological and physical barrier to integration and flow to/from East Cambridge.

The vibe I get right now is high-end suburban R&D park.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I will withhold final judgement until all the pieces are complete. It is missing some key elements to success right now, including GLX, the path, and likely McGrath Highway on a diet (to connect with East Cambridge better).

McGrath on a diet and the path are both big question marks. That flyover rail bridge on the path looks like a deal breaker! And without serious re-engineering of McGrath, it is a huge psychological and physical barrier to integration and flow to/from East Cambridge.

The vibe I get right now is high-end suburban R&D park.
Click to expand...
Just in the interest of clarity, are you talking about grounding McGrath (28 in Somerville) or updates to O'Brien (28 in Cambridge)?
There has already been a lot of work done on 28 in Cambridge, I don't think it's going to be a huge factor in how this development links to east Cambridge.
Also, the high bridge on the path isn't as high as I thought, I went down to the inner belt to take a look at the weekend, seems about as high as McGrath where it crosses the tracks.
also, heading to Cambridge crossing, there isn't a huge climb as the path is already elevated all the way through Brickbottom.

And nobody lives in suburban R&D parks.
If restrictions are lifted by Summer Cambridge crossing will come to life!
 
Ruari, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but with regard to:

Ruairi said:
This will be totally different to a suburban development.
That park will be full of life because there'll be a lot of people living there...
Click to expand...

Ruairi said:
...and nobody lives in suburban R&D parks...
Click to expand...

Just because someone plunked down a bunch of residences isn't what will/won't make this 'good urbanism' either. I was only half-joking with my Crystal City reference above: there are plenty of examples of botched semi-urban attempts like that that have both residences and workplaces and still fail most/all of my Numbers 1 - 6 above.

I do agree with George Apley (and you) that mocking this by comparing it to the suburbs totally misses the point (fun as that is, and no disrespect Jeffdowntown).

The point is that this is a botched-semi-urbanism -vs- good-legit-urbanism debate, i.e., how do we avoid creating Crystal Cities; it's NOT a suburbs vs. city debate.

Finally, just look to the present-day West End for proof that merely having residences and green space isn't enough to draw people in.
I walk through Cambridge Crossing at least weekly for curiosity/exercise. There are already hundreds if not thousands of residential units within 200 meters of the park. The park is predominately used by these local residents walking their dogs. That's fine for now. But what will the rest of the build-out, ground level uses, and various access features look like? That will make or break this from a good urbanism standpoint.

Again, I have a lot of hope and am rooting for this, but all the necessary evidence simply is not here yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top