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

[Suffolk 83]

to the programming of mixed-use transit-oriented development by the millions of square feet to the critical shared-use path infrastructure connections

First off I'm not sure why you are defensive about my personal opinion. Second, "transit-oriented"??? really? What exactly did they do differently to make it transit oriented? Nothing from what I can tell, they were fortuitous in that a green line stop is right next door. Maybe you're on their marketing team.

 

[Blackbird]

this blob complex absolutely ruins my experience when driving into the skyline on 93 from the North. It pretty much blocks out everything once you hit the Leverett Connector.

Uhh, it would've done this if the buildings were all 1000ft too..

First off I'm not sure why you are defensive about my personal opinion. Second, "transit-oriented"??? really? What exactly did they do differently to make it transit oriented? Nothing from what I can tell, they were fortuitous in that a green line stop is right next door. Maybe you're on their marketing team.

Didn't they build a staircase to make getting to Community College easier?

 

[dshoost88]

First off I'm not sure why you are defensive about my personal opinion. Second, "transit-oriented"??? really? What exactly did they do differently to make it transit oriented? Nothing from what I can tell, they were fortuitous in that a green line stop is right next door. Maybe you're on their marketing team.

Me on their marketing team? No.

My defensiveness over your post is simple: I'm a planner. I didn't plan this project, but I've made no shortage of contributions to plans around it and like it. Planners did their f*ckin' jobs beautifully.

For a development site I've been following for nearly 12 years, I applaud the team behind this: it is coming along almost exactly as envisioned from its inception. I stand by my remark about transit-oriented development: while other development typographies could've resulted in merely 'transit-adjacent' development, Cambridge Crossing doubled down on activating the ground level and sighting key open space/community amenities close to where those transit connections lay. Developments like nearly everything west of Alewife or even Assembly Row have constructed massive parking pedestals that isolate parts of their neighborhoods despite transit proximity--Cambridge Crossing doesn't. The connectivity via the Murphy Staircase to Gilmore Bridge activates the vehicular corridor to become even more pedestrian-oriented as it links tenants to the Orange Line's Community College Station. And the dedicated shared use paths, protected bike lanes, and complete streets network throughout the Cambridge Crossing development are filling a critical gap in the region's shared use path network from Boston to Cambridge, Somerville, and one day to Everett via the Northern Strand... a shortcoming of similar large-format, master planned developments that have come to the area recently.

So planners have failed because some of you didn't want your skyline views obstructed from I-93, or because the site didn't accommodate a supertall purely because the FAA allows for one? No.

 

[DZH22]

Uhh, it would've done this if the buildings were all 1000ft too..

1. They could have been a bit thinner, better proportioned, more "permeable" overall visually.
2. Can't complain about a 1000' tower blocking the view of 400'-600' towers. Sucks when it's all 150'-200' blobs blocking the view of something better. From the Leverett Connector, the city as a whole actually feels more underwhelming than it used to in the past, even though it's substantially more built up. This complex is a visual scar on the overall appearance of the city coming in from the North.

 

[dshoost88]

From the Leverett Connector, the city as a whole actually feels more underwhelming than it used to in the past, even though it's substantially more built up. This complex is a visual scar on the overall appearance of the city coming in from the North.

Suggestion: park your car and take a walk around the city. It's designed and prioritized for people to enjoy on foot, not from your Camry.

 

[stefal]

I don't think Cambridge, a city known internationally in the STEM fields for its biotech, pharma, tech/AI R&D, and everything else coming out of Harvard, MIT, Kendall, etc., is asking for tall towers. Tall towers are for traditional businesses. That's not what Cambridge wants or has, and they won't help keep their stance as a world leader in innovation - lab buildings and the like will. Even if they were residential, not only would they stick out like a sore thumb/visual scar likely for the foreseeable future, as nothing in Kendall or CambridgeSide will come close to that height for the same reasons I just outlined, but logistically I'm not sure, in an acceptable time frame for a ~$1B building, you can get enough residents to sign on a unit 1000' in the air. 1000' towers are for NYC, labs and R&D centers belong in Cambridge.

I'm not the biggest fan of the design of some of the buildings themselves, but planning wise, this was done well enough.

 

[Equilibria]

I don't think Cambridge, a city known internationally in the STEM fields for its biotech, pharma, tech/AI R&D, and everything else coming out of Harvard, MIT, Kendall, etc., is asking for tall towers. Tall towers are for traditional businesses. That's not what Cambridge wants or has, and they won't help keep their stance as a world leader in innovation - lab buildings and the like will. Even if they were residential, not only would they stick out like a sore thumb/visual scar likely for the foreseeable future, as nothing in Kendall or CambridgeSide will come close to that height for the same reasons I just outlined, but logistically I'm not sure, in an acceptable time frame for a ~$1B building, you can get enough residents to sign on a unit 1000' in the air. 1000' towers are for NYC, labs and R&D centers belong in Cambridge.

I'm not the biggest fan of the design of some of the buildings themselves, but planning wise, this was done well enough.

Actually, tall towers aren't really for anyone but real estate speculators at this point. Traditional businesses don't want offices in them either.

 

[DZH22]

Suggestion: park your car and take a walk around the city. It's designed and prioritized for people to enjoy on foot, not from your Camry.

How do you think I get all my pictures? It just detracts from my enjoyability when nicer views are blocked by lesser views.

Best example I can think of is Boylston Street, across from the Pru complex. The Pru used to loom far overhead, with 111 Huntington hanging out next door. It delivered a feeling of power and awe gazing up at it. Boylston has never been the same ever since they built that blob piece of crap with the windmills on top.

This is similar, because it takes a great urban area (Boston overall, not talking about the trainyards), and visually dumbs it down. From a utilitarian perspective, sure, it's "great" or whatever you want to call it. From a perspective of (A) having to look at it and (B) losing absolutely superior views because of it, this development gets a big fat F.

 

[JeffDowntown]

How do you think I get all my pictures? It just detracts from my enjoyability when nicer views are blocked by lesser views.

Best example I can think of is Boylston Street, across from the Pru complex. The Pru used to loom far overhead, with 111 Huntington hanging out next door. It delivered a feeling of power and awe gazing up at it. Boylston has never been the same ever since they built that blob piece of crap with the windmills on top.

This is similar, because it takes a great urban area (Boston overall, not talking about the trainyards), and visually dumbs it down. From a utilitarian perspective, sure, it's "great" or whatever you want to call it. From a perspective of (A) having to look at it and (B) losing absolutely superior views because of it, this development gets a big fat F.

Now, let's be fair. When driving into Boston on 93, the view of Cambridge Crossing certainly augments the experience in the same way Boston Sand and Gravel does.

 

[theSil]

Why would these hypothetical taller buildings need to be office space?

This project brings 2,400 units of housing online, which is nothing to sneeze at. But it also sits directly on two rapid transit lines and likely has more jobs within walking distance than almost anywhere else in New England. Casting aside any and all aesthetic preferences, when a metropolitan region thinks it needs to grow its housing supply by 20% by 2030 to achieve any kind of affordability, it is a planning failure when a site like this isn't squeezed for every last housing unit it can produce.

 

[dshoost88]

Casting aside any and all aesthetic preferences, when a metropolitan region thinks it needs to grow its housing supply by 20% by 2030 to achieve any kind of affordability, it is a planning failure when a site like this isn't squeezed for every last housing unit it can produce.

When a metropolitan region thinks it needs to grow its housing supply by 20% by 2030 to achieve any kind of affordability, it is a region-wide planning exercise, a region being the sum of its components (in this case, municipalities). 6.4 square mile Cambridge's 2020 estimated population of 120,000 is 15,000 more than in 2010... or a 14% increase. Meanwhile, 6.8 square mile Brookline's 2018 estimated population of 59,310 is a whopping 578 persons more than in 2010... a 1% increase. Regional goals require regional solutions, not inequitably putting all of our burdens (opportunities) on the doorstep of a handful of communities.

Cambridge has not failed at planning. Cambridge Crossing is not a planning failure. They are satisfying market demand and addressing very real regional needs. But on a regional-scale, the burden is not their own to bare. Literally every other municipality in Greater Boston has a responsibility to address our housing shortage by adapting/relaxing their zoning regulations and fulfilling the demand that exists. THAT is how we squeeze out every last housing unit we can produce. You can drain the lake filling a few pales at a time with water, or you can open the flood gates.

 

[DZH22]

You can drain the lake filling a few pales at a time with water, or you can open the flood gates.

How many other communities have gigantic amounts of open space suddenly become developable, like the trainyards here? You have a place like Suffolk Downs, with some of the most stringent FAA regulations in the metro. Then you have this place, with the most relaxed FAA regulations in the metro, developing like it's Suffolk Downs.

When you talk about opening the flood gates, the second largest city in the metro, with probably the single highest demand, bears an outsized responsibility for that. Although, it's really Kendall itself where we should be getting a handful of 800'-900' residentials, because that's possibly the most in-demand neighborhood in the entire country. Still, this area is very close by, and underwhelms compared to its potential and to the overall needs of the metro. Architecturally it's also a visual blight on the city as a whole, and that point cannot be hammered home enough.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I agree the architecture and site arrangement is pretty poor overall. One building even looks like the much despised O'Neill at North Station. It would have been nice to have a mix of low rise, medium and some supertalls, all with good street walls approximating a real neighborhood with a healthy pedestrian oriented street life. It would have been cool to striate that with some wetland areas and maybe even a small waterway. The Miller River used to run through the site long ago. What was built just seems a bit too mundane, an office park/Charles River Park type setup.

 

[theSil]

When a metropolitan region thinks it needs to grow its housing supply by 20% by 2030 to achieve any kind of affordability, it is a region-wide planning exercise, a region being the sum of its components (in this case, municipalities).

Seems like funny logic. More needs to be happening at higher levels government, sure, but that shouldn’t absolve smaller actors of trying to do the most that they can (especially since I don’t believe density must be seen as a burden, but that’s a separate argument).

If I were a planner with the city of Cambridge, I would recognize that the Boston MSA is in dire need of more housing and that this area represents an unmatched opportunity to make a dent in the problem. To analogize, should states not bother trying to legislate carbon emissions and leave it up to the federal government, since its obviously a national/global problem? I’m certainly glad that states step up to do more when our federal government fails to do so. Similarly, if I were a city planner I would feel a responsibility to do the most that I can to dampen the effects of a housing crisis that the region is failing to address.

 

[Boston02124]

 

[curcuas]

It takes severe galaxy brain *cough* Cambridge planning *cough* to decide that the retail shouldn't be on the ground floor of buildings but instead in independent mini pavilions.

 

[stick n move]

At least its something different and unique in an ever homogenizing world.

 

[Charlie_mta]

It is different for sure. The motley collection of quirky buildings looks messy to me. Just my personal taste I guess. I'd like a bit more understatement, more class, more harmony in style among the buildings. It almost seems like ugly and vulgar are in now in the world of architecture, at least in this development.

 

[Massachoicetts]

I'm not a fan all of the buildings look the same size and height. The designs are okay. But they could have varied them a bit more ...

 

[Rover]

I can live with the architecture here. Took forever to get this project off the ground and I'm not sure taller buildings were an option since neighborhood NIMBY'S went to the mat trying to get the old courthouse torn down for being too tall a few blocks away. With all the community payouts and linkage fees usually associated with building anything around here it's tough to expect the Taj Mahal out any large scale project.