Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

That almost looks like it was prefab-assembled from a bunch of half-complete boxy sections trucked in by wide-load flatbed...a phenomenon I had front-row seat watching get constructed in real-time with a couple condo buildings out by New St./Concord Ave. The jut-out "style" ends up the byproduct of all the constituent parts being made from flatbed-sized building blocks. Out in that area you wouldn't notice the difference in finished product because the razed property was all flipped ex-industrial parcels. Definitely more jarring a sight around Harvard, so the aesthetic fit is questionable at best.

Probably wasn't a modular job here, so who the hell knows what they were thinking with all those juts. The building next door most definitely does not tee up the sort of counterpoint that begs to be so over-the-top high-concept. Those angles are extreme-unorthodox enough I almost wonder if it's unnecessarily constraining the inside space.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
That almost looks like it was prefab-assembled from a bunch of half-complete boxy sections trucked in by wide-load flatbed...a phenomenon I had front-row seat watching get constructed in real-time with a couple condo buildings out by New St./Concord Ave. The jut-out "style" ends up the byproduct of all the constituent parts being made from flatbed-sized building blocks. Out in that area you wouldn't notice the difference in finished product because the razed property was all flipped ex-industrial parcels. Definitely more jarring a sight around Harvard, so the aesthetic fit is questionable at best.

Probably wasn't a modular job here, so who the hell knows what they were thinking with all those juts. The building next door most definitely does not tee up the sort of counterpoint that begs to be so over-the-top high-concept. Those angles are extreme-unorthodox enough I almost wonder if it's unnecessarily constraining the inside space.
Click to expand...
Re: 39 Hammond. I have a very dim recollection of a Harvard professor(s?) who lived in this Agassiz neighborhood objecting to (lamenting?) this development. The older house was originally the early 20th Century residence of a Harvard professor named Byerly. The developer is Senne
www.senneresidential.com

Senné

www.senneresidential.com www.senneresidential.com

Senne has other projects with similar geometry. E.g., Concord Ave. Cambridge
www.senneresidential.com

Senné

www.senneresidential.com www.senneresidential.com

But Senne can also be literal in its respect of tradition. See new construction 35 Willard:
goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
goo.gl goo.gl

^^^ The owner had best load up on fire insurance given the abutting building.
 
362 Broadway. A demolition and an exact reconstruction of this (though guessing it won't be purple again): https://www.google.com/maps/place/3...af93b53a480dc5!8m2!3d42.3704119!4d-71.1042688
Plan:
Is it really worth all the effort or is it preservation excess?
DSC_0186.jpeg
 
stellarfun said:
Senne has other projects with similar geometry. E.g., Concord Ave. Cambridge
www.senneresidential.com

Senné

www.senneresidential.com www.senneresidential.com
Click to expand...
From the website:
• Unit Minimum Price: $1,250,000
• Unit Maximum Price: $1,595,000
Is the max price restriction a requirement because Cambridge forced them to build these as "affordable" units? 😱🤑
 
Brad Plaid said:
362 Broadway. A demolition and an exact reconstruction of this (though guessing it won't be purple again): https://www.google.com/maps/place/3...af93b53a480dc5!8m2!3d42.3704119!4d-71.1042688
Plan:
Is it really worth all the effort or is it preservation excess?
View attachment 3475
Click to expand...
Its not historic preservation that's driving this. The owner sought to grandfather the now demolished building with respect to mass and lot occupancy, because as is, the original building grossly violates today's zoning code. If the owner tore it down and sought to build a new building with a new design, it likely would be a substantially smaller building, but one that would adhere to current code.

The owner appears to have received zoning relief to do this project because the old building lacked a foundation, and it was already at 100 percent lot occupancy. To construct the new foundation, one needs to demolish the existing structure, as the materials used in this 150+ year old building were substandard at the time of construction, and didn't age well. And as a cellar is apparently missing for some/all of the building, one couldn't jack it up from beneath, and then build a foundation.

In essence, this is a demolition followed by a reconstruction. I do not know whether it would be eligible, as a reconstruction, for historic preservation tax credits.
 
Brad Plaid said:
Plan:
Is it really worth all the effort or is it preservation excess?
Click to expand...

Nice job finding this. I looked for it and didn't.

Beyond the zoning element, the question is: would it add more if it was a Peter Quinn/Khalsa modernist box of the same approximate massing? I'd guess not. It's still an all-new building.

On the subject of zoning (and being too lazy to look it up), there has to be a point where the setback requirements can't be enforced because building would become impossible. That's a really narrow lot, so the building basically has to go edge-to-edge.
 
Curious about the empty lot next door where 360 used to stand. Presumably it's the same zoning situation as 362 and it's making it too difficult for the present owner to profit enough to make new construction feasible. It seems to have been vacant for a long time already and may stay that way for a long time to come.
 
59.jpg

^^^
362 Broadway, prior to demolition. There was a basement (of unknown dimensions) beneath about 60 percent of the building. It was classified as a two family residential.

48.jpg

^^^
360 Broadway. Owner is executor of an estate. Lot size is smaller than #362. The deceased was an interesting fellow.
www.cambridgeday.com

Peter Sheinfeld, election commissioner, music expert and taxi booster, dead at 68 - Cambridge Day

Peter Sheinfeld, a longtime election commissioner, has died at 67. In addition to his work on the commission, Sheinfeld was active in the local taxi industry and maintained a weekly AM radio show for nearly four decades.
www.cambridgeday.com www.cambridgeday.com

90.jpg

^^^
358 Broadway. The lot for 358 also includes the house with two windows and the peaked roof beyond the tree stump and the masonry block garage.
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
360 Broadway. Owner is executor of an estate. Lot size is smaller than #362. The deceased was an interesting fellow.
Click to expand...

That's pretty darn narrow (I've always assumed that was just part of the other lot). Of course, in NYC they'd go 1,500 feet tall on a lot that size :)
 
Inman Crossing 305 Webster Ave. Should have gone 6 floors. It's an underbuild and a bit of a wasted opportunity especially since its immediate neighbors are light industrial/auto salvage.
DSC_0389.jpeg
DSC_0393.jpeg
DSC_0397.jpeg
 
Equilibria said:
That's pretty darn narrow (I've always assumed that was just part of the other lot). Of course, in NYC they'd go 1,500 feet tall on a lot that size :)
Click to expand...

Driving past this this morning, both 360 and 362 are fenced in. The drawings make it clear that the building will only take up the 362 frontage, so I assume the 360 lot will continue to be vacant, but maybe landscaped?

Brad Plaid said:
Inman Crossing 305 Webster Ave. Should have gone 6 floors. It's an underbuild and a bit of a wasted opportunity especially since its immediate neighbors are light industrial/auto salvage.
Click to expand...

This one also caught fire not that long ago. I think it's going to look more like an underbuild once Boynton Yards is breaking 200' behind it.
 
Cambridge St schools, Valente library, and community center. Pretty much done, a great new asset. Library is nice and there are a couple of these cool animal benches right outside. There is a ramp into the swimming pool, have never seen that before.
DSC_0069.jpeg
DSC_0080 .jpeg
DSC_0100 .jpeg
DSC_0176 .jpeg
DSC_0164.jpeg
DSC_0254.jpeg
DSC_0257.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Not great optics on that pool at the moment. I guess that's why you typically cover pools in the winter...
 
Brad Plaid said:
Curious about the empty lot next door where 360 used to stand. Presumably it's the same zoning situation as 362 and it's making it too difficult for the present owner to profit enough to make new construction feasible. It seems to have been vacant for a long time already and may stay that way for a long time to come.
Click to expand...
360 was standing in 2003 according to an old aerial I found. Definitely gone by 2007 streetview. There was a fire, but I'm not sure when. When 362 was at the BZA, the owner of 358 (who owns the 360 lot too) asked if this rebuild would "become an issue if [he] was ever to build something on that lot".
 
Last edited:
10 Essex website specifies a $75 monthly pet rent for having a cat or dog. That's a new one. Considering how high the rents are this is just outright greed.
 
Brad Plaid said:
10 Essex website specifies a $75 monthly pet rent for having a cat or dog. That's a new one. Considering how high the rents are this is just outright greed.
Click to expand...

I mean, isn't asking for $1 more than the developer's loan payments outright greed? If the market won't bear it, they won't charge it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top