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

TC said:
If that project did provide that much open space maybe all the people fighting against the development would be happy?

Actually what are people complaining about with this project? There are no direct abutters. Is main complaint regarding the Lechmere relocation?
Click to expand...

There is no way that the developer would pay to create that much open space. It would totally destroy their IRR on the project. They would probably create only the open space they were required to build under their first phase of the development that included those two buildings. Any prudent developer/investor would ensure that they could complete that first phase for a reasonable minimum return (a subjective number, but whatever they can live with) in case the rest of the deal were to blow up, which it seems might happen.
 
Here's how they should have laid it out:
np2.jpg
 
good, except that there needs to be *some* path from the west end of the site to east, for the future extension of the Somerville Community Path from Davis Square to North Station.

Also, the Green Line really does need to be moved into the site so that it too can be extended into Somerville and Medford.
 
Back to the future is OK in theory, but the reality is that many parts of Boston that were torn down were really crummy. This picture could serve as a template or starting point, but all that is modern is not bad. The mindset that nothing could ever be as good or better than what has been lost really stunts Boston.
 
Ron Newman said:
Also, the Green Line really does need to be moved into the site so that it too can be extended into Somerville and Medford.
Click to expand...
Yep, it should run cut and cover beneath that diagonal that functions as Main Street.
 
tocoto said:
Back to the future is OK in theory, but the reality is that many parts of Boston that were torn down were really crummy. This picture could serve as a template or starting point, but all that is modern is not bad. The mindset that nothing could ever be as good or better than what has been lost really stunts Boston.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I'll never accept that "towers in the park" is better urban planning than the traditional tight-knit density.
 
Joe_Schmoe said:
Perhaps, but I'll never accept that "towers in the park" is better urban planning than the traditional tight-knit density.
Click to expand...

Nor should you. It's interesting you posted this montage because I remember a few years ago in some architecture magazine they super-imposed the Back Bay over the NorthPoint yards showing how much space there was and what could be done.

Edit: This isn't the image I was talking about but it is the same idea. This is to scale.


Also, Charlie_MTA posted this on the first page.
Charlie_mta said:
NorthPoint.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Here's what I would do with the area. Relocate McGrath Highway and continue the East Cambridge grid:

np.jpg
 
A vast improvement over the official scheme, charlie.

Proves "amateurs" can be trusted to come up with environmentally better designs than the pros. That's because you start with the physical form you're looking for, while the "pros" start with the numbers (dollars, square feet, construction costs), with the currently-fashionable theories, with the inflexible rules, and with the expectations of the public and development agencies in all their shriveled glory.

Public, developers and planners alike expect not-too-tall, large-footprint buildings set in or around a too-large "open space." That's virtue to the BRA, to Vivian Li, to the developers and their banks. They can't even conceive of an alternative like yours long enough to test it out and run the figures on it. It's just not the way things are done. It doesn't match any of the professional theories in the current textbooks.

That's because the game is rigged to favor the current official method, but it could just as easily be rigged to favor your outcome. You'd have to rejigger zoning laws, educational methods, financiers' notions of cash flow, contractors' organizational structure and the public's lame-brained misconceptions. A tall order, but not impossible.

It's scandalous but true that you, charlie, can come up in an hour or less with a physical outcome that's clearly better than the product of the informed efforts of the pros and their man-years of "professional" labor. It's clear to many of us on this board because we're enthusiasts, not pros.

Maybe it's time to introduce a little enthusiasm to the pros. They could start by throwing their theories and methods and book-learning out the window. Then they could sit down for thirty minutes, like you, and come up with a better design.

Since I actually do this myself and get money for it, I can tell you the method works, it's the coming thing, and mostly what stands in its way is regulations, narrow thinking and old habits. It's hard (but not impossible) to get things built based on this kind of product-oriented method; practitioners like Leon Krier, Andres Duany and Quinlan Terry have to put enormous and totally unnecessary effort into wrestling down the regulations and peoples' mindsets --but often they actually get things built.

As the public's awareness of global warming and its relationship to built form grows more sophisticated, this will become easier. After the city council overturned existing zoning to approve a little fragment of urban fabric I'd cooked up outside the rules, the mayor pro-tem remarked: "We have to make it easier to get things like this built."

In a nutshell you start with the product you know is right, not with the numbers and the rules, which lead inevitably to what we on this board (and few others) know is city-planning perdition.
 
ablarc said:
Maybe it's time to introduce a little enthusiasm to the pros. They could start by throwing their theories and methods and book-learning out the window. Then they could sit down for thirty minutes, like you, and come up with a better design.

Since I actually do this myself and get money for it, I can tell you the method works,
Click to expand...

ablarc, this is a very interesting question to me. in most of life if you break up "stuff" into smaller packages the consumer of the stuff pays more. that more $ is goes back up/down the value chain -- i.e. packages, transportation, retail space and staff, window displays that aren't needed in wholesale, etc., etc. (therefore the VATs, i guess...)

so i'm looking at this very interesting image and thinking -- why doesn't the same logic work in real estate. shouldn't it be in someone's interest to break up lots and sell each lot/development for a markup on the pro rate bulk / wholesale price? (i may not be saying this too well, but you probably get the point).

if nothing else, wouldn't it make more sense from the perspective of the city and state? more small lots taxed without big company accounting with its cost of business offsets, etc. and more people on smaller payrolls purchasing more goods and services overall to keep up their individual lots? (you could see this as an economic inefficiency, but from the local government perspective i would think it was a good thing).

so, what gives? why not?
 
wow
this sucks, if they don't build NorthPoint i will be pissed
i was so excited for this and it was such a major project....i don't get how one little thing can ruin it all lol
goddamn them!
 
I think it's interesting that it isn't NIMBY's who took it down but infighting between business partners. At least I can live with that.
 
The north side of downtown Portland, Oregon used to be a railyard very similar to the Northpoint land. Portland wisely chose to extend the historic downtown street grid system northward into this former railyard, and offer up the new blocks for a dense development of low-rise condos and street level retail. The vacant land on the north end of the aerial photo linked below will be filled in with similar blocks and high density development.

The area is so similar to the NorthPoint land,. There even used to be an elevated roadway similar to the Gilmore Bridge traversing the area, no longer needed because the rail yard was gone, so they removed most of the bridge and replaced it with a ground level street. In the rendering I did above, the Gilmore Bridge is still intact, but really it could be ramped down to ground level south of I-93, eliminating the barrier of the elevated roadway and enabling continuation easterly of the dense neighborhood grid.


If Portland, Oregon can develop an old railyard in this way, why not Cambridge and Boston?

Here's a Windows Live Local link to the area:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?...t=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5570512&encType=1
 
In a regulated context --such as the building or auto industry-- the product's cost and its nature are determined by the government regulations applied to the product.

If, for example, the government mandates catalytic converters, shoulder harnesses and crashworthiness standards, the price of cars goes up. If it were to mandate hydrogen fuel, run-flat tires and crash-avoidance standards, the price would also go up, but it would be a different car.

Car manufacturers comply with whatever standards the government sets for them. Because it's preferable to folding their tents, they will do this no matter what regulations the government cooks up.

Same with developers.

If the government limited lot size or required decorative roofs or limited building heights or regulated function or banished ground-floor retail or required brick cladding, then that's what the developers would do.

(Some of those things are already in the regulations, aren't they?)
 
Hooray! Now I don't need to preface every photo post with a "this is Archstone-Smith blah blah"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top