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

[ivyhedge]

There were several designs floated since 2022. The one loaded upthread was perhaps the second or third (which was the "amended second"). Their idea of "entry to CX" and ours (>50% of the community) really differed, however.

Regardless, DivCo told us late last fall that the project would be converted to a lab (sorry - that was when I was not posting). Now that labs are less in favor, perhaps the lot will idle. Or, maybe it will receive the gift of potted trees!

There has been no update to the design yet. The Bldup piece just refers to the fact that DivCo is going back to the planning board with this, as we discussed upthread, given that they may be able to eliminate below-grade parking due to excess parking elsewhere at CX. That board meeting for the proposed requirements changes is scheduled for June 18th. I am assuming we'll see a revised design submitted subsequently if the board approves the changes. Otherwise that render is almost two years old from the initial filing.

 

[bigpicture7]

There were several designs floated since 2022. The one loaded upthread was perhaps the second or third (which was the "amended second"). Their idea of "entry to CX" and ours (>50% of the community) really differed, however.

Regardless, DivCo told us late last fall that the project would be converted to a lab (sorry - that was when I was not posting). Now that labs are less in favor, perhaps the lot will idle. Or, maybe it will receive the gift of potted trees!

Thanks; I'm not up to speed about those discussions between filings with the city, but as I shared upthread, their May 9th document sustains Parcel R (151 Morgan) as redsiential and asks to remove parking:

"will contain approximately 120,901 square feet of multi-family residential use and 18,324 square feet of first floor retail/consumer establishment use. "

They also said:
"DivcoWest intends to restart and complete the design process once the Board decides whether or not on-site parking is required. Once that issue has been resolved, we plan on revising the design and returning to the Planning Board to seek Revised Design Review approval."

Document is here:

https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/SpecialPermits/sp179/sp179min12/sp179_amend12_appln_20240509.pdf

 

[ivyhedge]

Sorry - it was late when I responded.

They either Frankensteined the documents (unrealistic) or their plans changed again: perhaps it's back to residential. Anything would improve on the ugly storage/equipment parking that's there now (and its horrid fence).

Thanks; I'm not up to speed about those discussions between filings with the city, but as I shared upthread, their May 9th document sustains Parcel R (151 Morgan) as redsiential and asks to remove parking:

"will contain approximately 120,901 square feet of multi-family residential use and 18,324 square feet of first floor retail/consumer establishment use. "

They also said:
"DivcoWest intends to restart and complete the design process once the Board decides whether or not on-site parking is required. Once that issue has been resolved, we plan on revising the design and returning to the Planning Board to seek Revised Design Review approval."

Document is here:

https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/SpecialPermits/sp179/sp179min12/sp179_amend12_appln_20240509.pdf

 

[bigpicture7]

Sorry - it was late when I responded.

They either Frankensteined the documents (unrealistic) or their plans changed again: perhaps it's back to residential. Anything would improve on the ugly storage/equipment parking that's there now (and its horrid fence).

I for one hope the city grants them the parking reduction, and hope that this encourages them to press forward with residential for that parcel. It'd be a travesty if a vacant lot lingers when a nice chunk of housing units hang in the balance. Hopefully the no sub-grade parking consideration swings the economics favorably toward a near-term start.

 

[Badusername]

I for one hope the city grants them the parking reduction, and hope that this encourages them to press forward with residential for that parcel. It'd be a travesty if a vacant lot lingers when a nice chunk of housing units hang in the balance. Hopefully the no sub-grade parking consideration swings the economics favorably toward a near-term start.

I’m surprised Cambridge still requires parking close to transit, Somerville has no residential parking minimum within a half mile of transit.

 

[Stlin]

I’m surprised Cambridge still requires parking close to transit, Somerville has no residential parking minimum within a half mile of transit.

Unless I'm mistaken, that site got its initial approvals in May 2022, before Cambridge eliminated all parking minimums citywide in November 2022. Keep in mind that the memo notes that the CX permitting process related to parking started way back in ~2015. Consequently, when first permitted, it had gotten a special permit for the then in-force requirements. Since that parking condition had been written into its approvals back then, prior to the elimination of citywide parking minimums, it needs this amendment before they can proceed. Given that, I don't see any reason the city wouldn't grant this request.

 

[shmessy]

View attachment 50839
Carbon monoxide park is in full bloom. Looks pretty. Will look even better when the trees grow.

Looks really clean and nice, great pic, Longfellow!

But, jeezus, other than the Citizens Bank branch on the corner in that pic. that entire stretch looks remarkably retail-unactivated at the street level. It's pretty sad.

 

[Longfellow]

Looks really clean and nice, great pic, Longfellow!

But, jeezus, other than the Citizens Bank branch on the corner in that pic. that entire stretch looks remarkably retail-unactivated at the street level. It's pretty sad.

Yeah my hobby horses on this forum are mostly borne out of urban fails that I deal with regularly. It’s a weird spot because it’s like, a 1/4 mile at least from the “square” until you go far enough into CX for there to be businesses, there’s no businesses on first street really, the museum of science direction is a black hole, you have to walk uphill to East Cambridge to get to anything really,

So it’s almost a circular radius around old lechmere where there’s a cloud of no street activation… you could come up with a few theories for why but it remains that the city punted the football on this one.

 

[RandomWalk]

The old candy factory ate up a bunch of the frontage, and the redevelopment only stuck a few stores on the corner.

 

[Texasian]

Fences are down for the mini park at First and Cambridge.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Fences are down for the mini park at First and Cambridge.View attachment 51400

This photo is screaming out for the following to be done: 1) get rid of the piece of Cambridge Street shown in the photo, and convert it to an expansion of the new park; 2) convert the first floor of the building behind it, including the garage entrances, to retail shops (or tear down the entire building and replace it with something taller having ground-floor retail).

 

[ritchiew]

This has come up in other threads as well, but this little triangle park might be another example of where massive road space cuts into usable building space. In other instances, people have pointed to where slip lanes or a widened road cut into a proposed building's footprint. Here, it seems possible that the massive road space has cut into this parcel so much that it would be hard to building anything at all. If they had cut out one turn lane on each adjacent street, or eliminated the slip lane on the east end, then this might (might) have been a more reasonable plot to build on.

 

[Charlie_mta]

This has come up in other threads as well, but this little triangle park might be another example of where massive road space cuts into usable building space. In other instances, people have pointed to where slip lanes or a widened road cut into a proposed building's footprint. Here, it seems possible that the massive road space has cut into this parcel so much that it would be hard to building anything at all. If they had cut out one turn lane on each adjacent street, or eliminated the slip lane on the east end, then this might (might) have been a more reasonable plot to build on.

It seems that highway engineering was the only consideration here. I've been on many interdisciplinary teams, me being the highway engineer on the team, and we came up with solutions that addressed all aspects of a site: the pedestrian experience, buildable parcels, green space, aesthetics, and traffic. Here, it looks like the traffic engineers just holed up in a room by themselves and came up with this mess.

 

[bigpicture7]

Fences are down for the mini park at First and Cambridge.

Ah yes, but for the real question: is this "park's" simulated bird noise generator online yet?? I'll be listening at my next pass through...

 

[JeffDowntown]

This photo is screaming out for the following to be done: 1) get rid of the piece of Cambridge Street shown in the photo, and convert it to an expansion of the new park; 2) convert the first floor of the building behind it, including the garage entrances, to retail shops (or tear down the entire building and replace it with something taller having ground-floor retail).

The building owners of One Canal Park are probably going to object to you telling them to tear down their building, particularly after they just invested in a major biotech lab conversion. But sure, tell them to tear it down, because "reasons".

 

[RandomWalk]

The lab conversion is not the building on the corner, but the next one down First St. The corner building has HubSpot.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The lab conversion is not the building on the corner, but the next one down First St. The corner building has HubSpot.

I am sorry, I had One Canal Park and Two Canal Park mixed up.

 

[bigpicture7]

OK, it is really odd they call the conversion One Canal Park. The next building is Two Canal Park.

But I thought HubSpot was in One Canal Park, so confusion.

One Canal Park, Two Canal Park, etc, have been named that way for a long time. The developers who bought One Canal just sustained the name. Agree it's not the most intuitive scheme.

Hubspot did once have space in One Canal. They consolidated into Two.

The mixup doesn't invalidate your point about a landlord of a leased building not being motivated to do anything anytime soon ; )

I'd just be psyched if the vacant bullnose corner spot in Two Canal that was once an oversized Bank of America ATM could get turned into something other than a dead corner.

 

[JeffDowntown]

One Canal Park, Two Canal Park, etc, have been named that way for a long time. The developers who bought One Canal just sustained the name. Agree it's not the most intuitive scheme.

Hubspot did once have space in One Canal. They consolidated into Two.

The mixup doesn't invalidate your point about a landlord of a leased building not being motivated to do anything anytime soon ; )

I'd just be psyched if the vacant bullnose corner spot in Two Canal that was once an oversized Bank of America ATM could get turned into something other than a dead corner.

Yes, I had them mixed up.

Ground floor 'retail' has had a really checkered history in that stretch of First Street (as in not much luck).

 

[bigpicture7]

Ground floor 'retail' has had a really checkered history in that stretch of First Street (as in to much luck).

Agreed, but what's interesting is that, despite that, recent development is just further flooding this stretch with retail slots. One Canal just put up new postings for retail leading in its existing slots, the former Sears building that just got re-built has a numerous ground floor slots posted; the First street garage ground level was just completely gutted and redeveloped into cafe space and an "open market." There's a planned development for the old David's shoes building. Etc.
Who knows that is going to happen, but the fact that the lab space in One Canal and 60 First (former Sears) actually got fully leased (surprisingly - perhaps because they had the strategy of leasing single-floor fully equipped suites to small biotechs rather than trying to get a marquee anchor tenant) may mean there will be a new bump in foot traffic that could help change this stretch.

Separate but related note: One Canal has that 80's style dark, recessed street-level "promenade" that just never seems to work well for retail. Same deal over at One Main/101 Main in Kendall. That style ground level just sucks.