52 New Street | Alewife | Cambridge

stick n move

Superstar
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
12,082
Both BLDUP and the Cambridge city website say this is u/c. I wasnt even aware that the old building was demo’d yet, but I guess it has started construction.

52 New Street​

52 New Street Entrance - Rendering


“Just A Start (JAS) began construction of 52 New Street in January 2024. This new project, located in North Cambridge immediately adjacent to Danehy Park, will result in the creation of 106 units of affordable rental housing. The site is well located for housing, in close proximity to many amenities in the neighborhood including the Fresh Pond reservoir, Fresh Pond shopping areas, public transit, and Danehy Park.

JAS is developing the site as 100% affordable housing under provisions of the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO).

JAS completed the AHO process in January 2022 and closed on construction financing in December 2023. Construction on the project is underway.”


Existing Site:

An industrial site on a deep asphalt lot adjacent to Danehy Park near the Fresh Pond reservoir, Fresh Pond shopping areas, and public transit.


New Construction:

  • 106 affordable units
  • Approximately 3,000 square feet of new retail/commercial space
  • Improved site connectivity to Danehy park
  • Transformation of the site to residential use

rendering1.png

1705524603810.png

1705524620298.png

1705524636207.png


https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Housing/52newstreet

https://www.bldup.com/projects/52-new-street-e7bfa1dc-44d2-4c4f-90fb-7e5be7661b60

010621i-52-New-St.png

1705525062441.png

https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/0...-for-citys-affordable-housing-overlay-zoning/
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't think any of these 5-over-1's should get their own threads. I hate sifting through the junk. They all belong in their respective neighborhood infill threads and that's it.
 
A worse problem would be people NOT posting at all. At least aB is lively.

This project belongs here:
 
Personally, I don't think any of these 5-over-1's should get their own threads. I hate sifting through the junk. They all belong in their respective neighborhood infill threads and that's it.

.....and some of us value 106 badly needed units (not some 18 unit "infill") being added to the housing supply as not "junk". Arguably it helps Boston's URBANITY more than another anonymous fortress lab or cookie cutter blue glass tower with no street level urban dynamic interaction/activity. But, hey, to each his own. You prefer one type, others value another. Vive la difference!
 
Last edited:
This project belongs here:

I get where you're coming from, but in the spirit of organizing the forum for many/most people browsing it, I disagree. Something with over 100 units is not "infill." Construction material preferences aside, this is one is certainly not infill, it is a substantial building. Moreover, while I 100% agree that many/most 5-on-1s are architectural garbage, some are not - and a few have even been architectural gems. I just would prefer it not be automatic that an attractive, substantial building need be buried in an infill thread just because of its construction material. A 30-unit bland box, sure. Something like 52 New St.? It should get its own thread, and you can feel free to ignore it.
 
that rendering of the kids playing soccer in front of the most boring building imaginable is depressing. At least theres a healthy ratio of soccer balls to kids!
 
that rendering of the kids playing soccer in front of the most boring building imaginable is depressing. At least theres a healthy ratio of soccer balls to kids!
The kids (and adults) are lucky they will have all the amenities of Danehy Park right next door. Cambridge has always had a robust system of neighborhood parks, which is really important for high density developments housing lots of kids.
 
The kids (and adults) are lucky they will have all the amenities of Danehy Park right next door. Cambridge has always had a robust system of neighborhood parks, which is really important for high density developments housing lots of kids.
I dont doubt that for a second. the image just looks grim.
 

Back
Top