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

So, in general, CX development (including either actual movement on the ground, or with new filings/amendments w/ Planning Board) has been pretty quiet over the past year. With Parcels Q2, R, S-T, V supposedly in the queue, it sure seemed like a bit of a stall. But finally this week there's some movement w/ the special permits office...a minor amendment document, with some updates:

www.cambridgema.gov

PB-179

Special Permit Application, PB179
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov
^From therein: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media...9/sp179min12/sp179_amend12_appln_20240509.pdf

Some interesting items from within include:
- The Park 151 residential building is reported as fully leased (95%), yet with its parking less utilized than expected, so they're asking to reduce parking requirements going forward for CX
- They are asking for the yet-to-be-started Parcel R residential building to have its own parking relocated, using the excess elsewhere instead for those residents as needed
- They disclosed that the Parcel R project itself has been delayed by the "economic downturn" (MmmHmm)...
- They propose re-starting the Parcel R project with a redesign to remove below grade parking pending the City's above-mentioned decision on reducing CX parking
- Supposedly a community meeting was held on May 7 to discuss all this

Anyway, it is at least nice to see something here.
 
Knocking out the parking would sure save a lot of money on construction costs. With interest rates + bank lending requirements the way they are, developers are having to pony up more of their own capital/their investors' capital instead of borrowing. By reducing the project's overall costs, you could come up with a way to close the gap between what the developer can pony up and what a bank is willing to offer.

Below-grade parking cost something like $80,000 per space in Greater Boston these days.
 
Aprehensive_Words said:
Knocking out the parking would sure save a lot of money on construction costs. With interest rates + bank lending requirements the way they are, developers are having to pony up more of their own capital/their investors' capital instead of borrowing. By reducing the project's overall costs, you could come up with a way to close the gap between what the developer can pony up and what a bank is willing to offer.

Below-grade parking cost something like $80,000 per space in Greater Boston these days.
Click to expand...
Removing parking when you find yourself with an excess is a pretty worthy reason to delay, from my view.

And yeah, by "economic downturn" they mean the economy for them. Interest rates are kind of too high to build right now. Of course, the reason they're still high is that the overall economy is doing too well.
 
IMG_7308.jpeg

Carbon monoxide park is in full bloom. Looks pretty. Will look even better when the trees grow.
 
Java King said:
Well, it may be Carbon Monoxide Park, but it's better looking than the elevated T structure! :)
Click to expand...
iu


If only we lived in a real city.

MassDOT psychically tortures me every day with the suburban style new 4 lane road they added so executives can drive out of CX faster. Cause you're definitely meant to drive there.
 

Attachments

  • 1716746299076.jpeg
    1716746299076.jpeg
    561.2 KB · Views: 33
Longfellow said:
iu


If only we lived in a real city.

MassDOT psychically tortures me every day with the suburban style new 4 lane road they added so executives can drive out of CX faster. Cause you're definitely meant to drive there.
Click to expand...

Whenever you feel that way, just head down to the Financial District, Beacon Hill, Central Square, or any of the other places around Boston that are most definitely "real city" in their vibe.
 
Multiple intersections with significant cross streets suggest that there will be a fair amount of pedestrian traffic, certainly enough to warrant these well-designed concrete walkways channeled through green living space with what appears to be a bike stand. Judging by the height of surrounding buildings, it's unlikely a larger structure would make any sense here. If you are going to make room for an open city square to let in light and to provide people on foot the chance to appreciate the scale of their surroundings, this seems like an appropriate spot.
 
Re
NHMaples said:
Multiple intersections with significant cross streets suggest that there will be a fair amount of pedestrian traffic, certainly enough to warrant these well-designed concrete walkways channeled through green living space with what appears to be a bike stand. Judging by the height of surrounding buildings, it's unlikely a larger structure would make any sense here. If you are going to make room for an open city square to let in light and to provide people on foot the chance to appreciate the scale of their surroundings, this seems like an appropriate spot.
Click to expand...
Except the pedestrian access to lechmere is miserable. And there’s zero businesses in the “square” besides a bank chain. And the dirt lot on the right of the image is slated for a future development. Not to mention the tall buildings in CX across the street.

The whole thing is an urban fail a discouraged pedestrians… saying this as someone who has to bike through here to go to work. It’s cool going straight through but any left turn in this area is a nightmare on a bike. I actually avoid this area when walking to Lechmere in fact as I have no wish to be near the area.
 
curcuas said:
This is all the CRA. A Cambridge gov't source says that their planners (+ Cambridge City ones) are inordinately fond of these roadfume parks and no one can convince them otherwise.
Click to expand...
Good afternoon,
I hear you loud and clear but this question/issue should be addressed to the Community Development Department of the City of Cambridge at cddat344@cambridgema.gov or by calling 617-349-4600. The CRA has not been involved with that area.
Click to expand...


Sent my usual grouchy email. Turns out it’s not the CRA at least according to this person
 
Also pretty sure, as mentioned upthread, that the little triangle park is housing a stormwater detention facility. So while criticism of it's lousiness as a "park" is fair, it is at least accomplishing something useful (this plus the bluebikes station). Lastly these roads have been here for many decades. It is not like the park designers said "hmm, let's surround this thing by tons of lanes of traffic! That'll add to the ambiance!"
 
O’Brien is a mess and has been for decades. Any substantive improvement would require downgauging the road, which will never happen.
 
Patrick Winn said:
View attachment 50891
Looks like the vacant lot is being turned into a tree park. At least for the foreseeable future.
View attachment 50892
Some very modern looking structures (streetlights?)
View attachment 50893
And a turtle.
Click to expand...
Ha, I was biking down the other side of the street on the path with my 5yo on the bike the other day and he asks 'what are those bendy poles'. I glanced over and first thing I saw were bike racks so thats what I told him. On the way back we both saw them and He said they must be for huge bikes. I had a bit of explaining to do. I hope they are actually lights now!
 
bigpicture7 said:
Also pretty sure, as mentioned upthread, that the little triangle park is housing a stormwater detention facility. So while criticism of it's lousiness as a "park" is fair, it is at least accomplishing something useful (this plus the bluebikes station). Lastly these roads have been here for many decades. It is not like the park designers said "hmm, let's surround this thing by tons of lanes of traffic! That'll add to the ambiance!"
Click to expand...
Very fair comment. But my gripe is specifically the brand new connector where the t stop used to be.
 
Longfellow said:
Very fair comment. But my gripe is specifically the brand new connector where the t stop used to be.
Click to expand...
If you mean the First St extension, yes, it is unnecessary to have it tie straight through where the T stop used to be. That was done, I assume, to provide a direct vehicular road linkage between Cambridge X-ing and the Kendall Square/MIT area. I would have preferred a direct bike/pedestrian link through there instead of the First Street extension, which would have cut down on the spaghetti maze of roadways.
 
I thought the original plan involved changing Cambridge St to one way or something more substantial than what was built.
 
RandomWalk said:
I thought the original plan involved changing Cambridge St to one way or something more substantial than what was built.
Click to expand...
Not sure but Cambridge St does "end" as a one way slip lane onto the O'Brien highway. They changed the layout so you have to use the new First Street Extension to turn left from O'Brien onto Cambridge St.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top