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

Popping out of the trees from the urban park roof garden

IMG_1933.jpg
IMG_1936.jpg
 
290 Binney, getting close to topping out (8/29) from Discovery Cafe patio.

In my humble opinion, this area is very appropriate for much taller.

On that note - is there any chances for seeing more mixed-use between lab and residential? A taller hotel in this area is sorely needed as well. This building is too stumpy for me.
 

Attachments

  • 20240829_104616.jpg
    20240829_104616.jpg
    2.9 MB · Views: 79
AndrewOnTheMBTA said:
290 Binney, getting close to topping out (8/29) from Discovery Cafe patio.

In my humble opinion, this area is very appropriate for much taller.

On that note - is there any chances for seeing more mixed-use between lab and residential? A taller hotel in this area is sorely needed as well. This building is too stumpy for me.
Click to expand...
The Volpe campus redevelopment (MITIMCo) and the MXD parcels (BXP) are both Planned Use Developments, which means they have a master plan (which supersedes zoning) that specifies uses, heights, FARs, etc. Both of those developments are spec'd for one tall building each, with 121 Broadway being the one in MXD development and which has broken ground.

Aside from those two parcels, there aren't currently approved allowances for tall buildings. That could change, but it's not on the horizon, and would likely take a new proponent to establish a PUD elsewhere in the vicinity. There have been a few false starts in/around Kendall, but I think it would take something like a new build cycle (i.e., cheap financing, roaring development environment) for that to happen. Don't kill the messenger please.
 
By the way, this graphic posted by @Justbuildit in this thread clearly illustrates the relative heights of the 250 + 290 Binney buildings relative the 121 Broadway building in the background. There has been no official design submitted yet for the other (Volpe site) tall building.

1716297053719-png.50695


Note that this under-construction building (290 Binney) is slated to top out at 320' per this diagram
 
As of 9/8 290 Binney.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6246.jpg
    IMG_6246.jpg
    6.9 MB · Views: 109
  • IMG_6245.jpg
    IMG_6245.jpg
    6.5 MB · Views: 105
  • IMG_6247.jpg
    IMG_6247.jpg
    7.6 MB · Views: 98
  • IMG_6250.jpg
    IMG_6250.jpg
    5.7 MB · Views: 97
  • IMG_6253.jpg
    IMG_6253.jpg
    5.8 MB · Views: 117
  • IMG_6252.jpg
    IMG_6252.jpg
    5.3 MB · Views: 112
  • IMG_6258.jpg
    IMG_6258.jpg
    6.2 MB · Views: 111
  • IMG_6268.jpg
    IMG_6268.jpg
    5.8 MB · Views: 109
It pains me to even post this. BXP is asking the city to consider to alternative pathways for building out the approved commercial square footage for the "twin" of this tower (the 250 Binney, current ThermoFisher low rise site).

Path A is continuing with the approved future plans for the 250 Binney site.
Path B is forgoing the buildout at 250 Binney, and instead moving that commercial space to a new larger building in place of the existing 105 Broadway.

Community Mtg October 9:

Posted briefing from a recent CRA meeting (Sept 18 Meeting - https://www.cambridgeredevelopment.org/2024-meetings):
^See "Section 3: 105 Broadway"

Of course they state the usual caveats of there being no design yet for 105 Broadway, but the extra lump of mass along that stretch, as opposed to the original planned twin lab towers design on Binney, just feels really off to me. Don't kill the messenger please.
 
That would be a bummer, changing the twin/sibling proposal for the two Binney buildings would be a loss. I note they don't including massing designs for what the "reduced" 250 building would look like, just that the new 105 Broadway would be getting bigger. How did they get this far and not resolve the existing lease issue with ThermoFisher on the parcel they own?!



1727369736785.png
 
Is the motivation for the change the ThermoFisher lease, or is there something else?
 
I guess the most cynical read is they'll play a shell game to get additional GFA at the Broadway site now, citing delays at 250 Binney. Some deal may be struck where they can start demo and construction on Binney and then plead to go back to the "original" design. Offering something particularly ghastly as the 250 Binney replacement right now could be a great way to facilitate that.

If there is indeed a 5-10(!) year delay on getting started at 250 Binney because of ThermoFisher's lease (as they say in the doc) this could very well be a good faith solution...but begs the question how they bungled that so badly to begin with.
 
Worth noting that the building at 105 Broadway likely would not be a blob. Nothing they've done at MXP has been so far, and they've gone above-and-beyond in unexpected ways.
 
I'm sure everything would look nice under any circumstance. Can't find an existing "short" 105 Broadway render anywhere, but I think the twin buildings on Binney look great and it would be a shame to lose one of them.
 
Justbuildit said:
I'm sure everything would look nice under any circumstance. Can't find an existing "short" 105 Broadway render anywhere, but I think the twin buildings on Binney look great and it would be a shame to lose one of them.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a design for a "short" 105 Broadway; there I think BXP is just referring to the 105 Broadway that already exists:

105b-1-1.png

Google maps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top