Assembly Innovation Park | 5 Middlesex Ave | Somerville

DZH22 said:
Well it looks like the tallest is only about 250', so they're leaving half of their potential on the table in that respect.
Click to expand...

i'm yet to see anyone on this board suggest any type of construction that exceeds the FAA limit in Somerville, Everett, or Cambridge. What i see presented are differing points of view toward good urbanism. The right answer often falls somewhere between the scheme of tall vs less tall. Sometimes very tall or very untall is the correct answer. i don't see ideas presented that warrent being labeled a fetish..

Just be an urban core;

Embrace the take-no-prisoner attitude, and conserve for the future.

When you have no land, you build tall wherever it can be accomplished.
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
When you have no land, you build tall wherever it can be accomplished.
Click to expand...

If you're playing SimCity, yes. If you're in the real world, no. You build tall when demand is there/it is economically feasible.
 
datadyne007 said:
If you're playing SimCity, yes. If you're in the real world, no. You build tall when demand is there/it is economically feasible.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to encourage odurandina's overwhelming height fetishism, but regulatory approval cares little about demand and economic feasibility. Plenty of projects would go taller if they could, but the developers know it would be a non-starter with the powers that be. When the majority of the condos in the new Assembly Row condo tower are sold out more than a year before opening and prices cross $1k/sf, the demand is there.

That's not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for limiting height. But demand and economics, in this environment and in this city, is usually not that reason.
 
odurandina said:
i'm yet to see anyone on this board suggest any type of construction that exceeds the FAA limit in Somerville, Everett, or Cambridge. What i see presented are differing points of view toward good urbanism. The right answer often falls somewhere between the scheme of tall vs less tall. Sometimes very tall or very untall is the correct answer. i don't see ideas presented that warrent being labeled a fetish..

Just be an urban core;

Embrace the take-no-prisoner attitude, and conserve for the future.

When you have no land, you build tall wherever it can be accomplished.
Click to expand...

Are you playing some sort of Arch-Urb Interwebs cartoon character as absurdist theatre, or is this seriously how extremist your real-life advocacy is? This is getting mighty close to Poe's Law territory.
 
JumboBuc said:
I don't mean to encourage odurandina's overwhelming height fetishism, but regulatory approval cares little about demand and economic feasibility. Plenty of projects would go taller if they could, but the developers know it would be a non-starter with the powers that be. When the majority of the condos in the new Assembly Row condo tower are sold out more than a year before opening and prices cross $1k/sf, the demand is there.

That's not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for limiting height. But demand and economics, in this environment and in this city, is usually not that reason.
Click to expand...

Construction costs in general go up very quickly once you surpass the 1 plus 5-story wood construction limit, but in Boston especially, where construction costs are simply put, outrageous. You get into procuring cast-in-place concrete & steel, plus lose floor area as you go up and need fire/water pumps, extra elevator banks & mechanical chases. Economics definitely factor into developers' decisions on how high to go. Yes, there's a degree of going a little lower to combat the assumed NIMBYism, but it helps get stuff built rather than arguing about it for decades.
 
odurandina said:
would the City. . .
Click to expand...

No, they would not. Because it's their choice not to approve it, for the reasons they choose. There is no semi-autonomous BRA in Somerville, and there never will be.

And, BTW, City Hall has the patience to see through an Internet commenter's five-star temper tantrum about SimCity hypotheticals and keep going about their business unaffected. Because they will never waste their time reading such utterly impractal and unhinged posts in the first place.

What you are doing is the type of thing that invokes the same sort of "Old Man Yells At Cloud" crowd control every planning agency has to grin and bear for That Guy™ who disrupts every civic meeting trying to get attention for himself. That Guy™ with the broken-record rant that sometimes is but often isn't on-topic...but always shape-shifts to no matter what the meeting agenda is. The more you use this crutch as an attention-getting device, the less credible your opinioneering body-of-work is. At your peril, bud.
 
datadyne007 said:
Construction costs in general go up very quickly once you surpass the 1 plus 5-story wood construction limit, but in Boston especially, where construction costs are simply put, outrageous. You get into procuring cast-in-place concrete & steel, plus lose floor area as you go up and need fire/water pumps, extra elevator banks & mechanical chases. Economics definitely factor into developers' decisions on how high to go. Yes, there's a degree of going a little lower to combat the assumed NIMBYism, but it helps get stuff built rather than arguing about it for decades.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but plenty of 5-story wood buildings would be 20-story glass and steel buildings if economics and demand were the only concern. And plenty of 40-story buildings would be 60-story buildings. When you're talking about 5-stories vs 6-stories, then yeah, the marginal cost of that next floor is probably higher than its marginal benefit. But when you're talking about 5 vs 20, regulation is frequently what matters.

That being said -- and bringing this back to this project -- the proposed density here looks good to me. It pushes the envelope a bit while staying grounded in feasibility and reality.
 
Bringing it back to this project, the massing of this has always left me uneasy. It's... clunky. Too superblock-y.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Bubble or not is debatable, but you leave out a lot of proposed lab space at Northpoint, that isn't very far from this location. Perhaps an attempt to have it tied to the nexus in that way (Kendall obviously being that nexus.)

However, I would easily place this location above Waltham, Lexington, Woburn, or Burlington for two simple reasons. Actual proximity to Cambridge & Boston (as in you CAN get there from here), and that shiny new orange line stop right across the street.

Real mass transit and real city access. Not too mention, while Somerville may not have some street cred you speak of, many of the folks who work in Kendall.... live in Somerville.

Now, doesn't mean those assumptions will pan out, but if you can build like Kendall (which you can't do in Waltham) at a decently lower price point. It could work. They already own the land it would seem, so the land acquisition hurdle is passed to negate that driving up the costs.

I like the density on what is really right now one big over sized block.
Click to expand...


Seamus -- you need to have something to anchor to when you are building for Gnurds in Gnurd country

You are either building because someone asks for it specifically [i.e. Novartis on Mass Ave.], or because there is already of a critical mass of like stuff [i.e. Kendall]-- Gnurds when not actively working like to hang with kindred spirits

Assembly to date offers office people and places for them to hang -- its neither Gnurd-o-phobe or Gnurd friendly. Sommerville has Tufts on the boundary -- but they don't need to go to assembly when Davis is a short walk / bus ride.

So outside of Waltham which started attracting spill-out from Cambridge a while ago -- Lexington is probably the go-to location for Gnurd Building -- and is now way above Woburn and Burlington principally because Shire took over Raytheon's old HQ campus and has expanded and expanded at the corner of Rt-2, Rt-128 and Hayden Ave. & Spring Streets

Meanwhile Hartwell Ave., and nearby side streets which used to be filled with Hanscom-o-philic companies is now loading up with biotech and pharma-related

The other Lexington big feature is that Gnurds like living amongst Gnurds and Lexington has that over all other locations except Cambridge -- i.e. when you want to borrow an extension cord its nice if the lender is an MIT Faculty Member or a Nobel or maybe both

The only downside So far -- Both Lexington "Tech business neighborhoods" lack adequate retail [principally food -- i.e. nothing near Shire, and only Waxy's on Hartwell] so Lexington Center is the beneficiary
 
^Lexington is a car dominant suburb. With Assembly developed it's a vibrant urban center with rapid transportation. I just don't think they compare. Yes there will always be businesses that want a more suburban environment. However there are many that want to attract college grads and can't afford Kendall Square that would see Assembly as a perfect alternative.

Lexington competes with Burlington, Woburn, Waltham, Andover, Braintree, etc. I think Assembly is more similar to Kendall than those places. It competes with Kendall/Seaport/Boston Landing.
 
Last edited:
tysmith95 said:
^Lexington is a car dominant suburb. With Assembly developed it's a vibrant urban center with rapid transportation. I just don't think they compare. Yes there will always be businesses that want a more suburban environment. However there are many that want to attract college grads and can't afford Kendall Square that would see Assembly as a perfect alternative.

Lexington competes with Burlington, Woburn, Waltham, Andover, Braintree, etc. I think Assembly is more similar to Kendall than those places. It competes with Kendall/Seaport/Boston Landing.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- you are missing the essence of my post -- for Business HQ and back office you can go anywhere in/out spread-out or dense it doesn't in the end really matter

For the kind of place that hires the true Gnurds you have to have something to attract them -- you are not competing with another suburb or even US city -- you are competing on a global-scale

Ages, Genders, Level of Attainment [peer-recognized], Areas of Specialization, Cultural Backgrounds -- all will have some place in the Gnurd's pecking order when they chose a place to inhabit -- but more than anything else Gnurds want to be where other Gnurds are located -- for work, play and even living.

On this Kendall is nearly unique -- it offers right across the street access to the Core of one of the top U's in the World -- even Harvard's Boston Extension can't offer that except for Med School. Given that -- once you lose the ability to take your lunch in brown paper bag and hear a seminar by a visiting Nobel Laureate or an up-and-coming Post Doc [being as intensely recruited for a faculty position as someone in a Pro Draft Round 1] -- then you are into spill-over space. You just hope there is enough within your campus and walking or a short trip via other travel-means to keep the Gnurds happy.

No chance for Burlington, Woburn or Waltham to compete in this bene -- except for the "Within your Campus" -- e.g. Oracle on Van de Graaff Dr. [3 buildings] and Network Drive [former Sun Micro] both in Burlington. Lexington however, for the non-bio-lab Gnurd has traditionally offered the added stimulus of Lincoln Lab and the late lamented Air Force Lab located on Hanscom -- but recent security concerns have made the Lincoln Cafeteria less available.

The other Lexington advantage -- for the more senior people, typically married and often with school aged children -- Lexington schools are always near the top -- not true of any of the other places mentioned, even Cambridge fails on this account.
 
^I think the suburban locations work better for employees looking for older employees. For the employers looking to attract recent college graduates an urban location is better.

With regards to access to top educational institutions, Assembly is closer than the suburban locations. If the urban ring is ever built it would provide assembly with easy public transport access to Kendall/Harvard.

I'd argue that Assembly is better located then the seaport. It has better transit access and is closer to Cambridge. It will never be able to command the rents of Kendall but the development costs are much lower in Assembly compared to Kendall.
 
Somerville already has a decent supply of tech and biotech companies in old industrial spaces along the rail lines and inner belt. I work for one on the Charlestown/Somerville border. Access to public transit and cheap(er) lab space matter a lot. Greater Kendall is expanding and as companies begin to need to scale and have larger space demands, moving slightly further away, but still within the core is becoming ever more common.

Of course, this sort of pattern would never have happened had Cambridge logically zoned Kendall for growth....
 
curcuas said:
Of course, this sort of pattern would never have happened had Cambridge logically zoned Kendall for growth....
Click to expand...
When moonbats govern other moonbats don't expect much of anything logical to happen. I'm surprised a unicorn airport wasn't mandatory for the MIT redevelopment.
 
curcuas said:
Somerville already has a decent supply of tech and biotech companies in old industrial spaces along the rail lines and inner belt. I work for one on the Charlestown/Somerville border. Access to public transit and cheap(er) lab space matter a lot. Greater Kendall is expanding and as companies begin to need to scale and have larger space demands, moving slightly further away, but still within the core is becoming ever more common.

Of course, this sort of pattern would never have happened had Cambridge logically zoned Kendall for growth....
Click to expand...

I'm curious what you think that means... Cambridge hasn't stood in the way of very much development in Kendall. You can't build 1000' lab buildings, and there's only so much ground in Kendall to put the buildings on.
 
tysmith95 said:
I'd assume that the blank wall is part of the parking garage but i'm not sure.
Click to expand...

It probably is part of the parking, but it's still crappy architecture/urban design. I know it is the fad to have function define form, but a boring interior use does not mean you have to make the exterior boring as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top