Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,136
Reaction score
430
Some contextual mixed-use replacing the Sleepy's in Central:


Seems to limit development on the Chipotle and Supreme Liquors to something that maintains and air/light gap. Very contextual for Peter Quinn.

View attachment 8334
The development is taking about a third of the existing Chipotle building. I assume the same owner for all three stores, and if so, said owner is willing to covenant the other two buildings to preclude and future development that would go above two stories. Otherwise, I think this would be a high-risk undertaking.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
2,384
The development is taking about a third of the existing Chipotle building. I assume the same owner for all three stores, and if so, said owner is willing to covenant the other two buildings to preclude and future development that would go above two stories. Otherwise, I think this would be a high-risk undertaking.
But then why not do a facelift on the other two facades?
 

RandomWalk

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
434
That’s the former grocery store with attached liquor store. Due to licensing reasons, it was a separate business and had grates to demarcate it. After the grocery closed, the liquor store remained. I suppose that simplifies the mixed use reconstruction.
 

sm89

Active Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
977
Reaction score
117
I found it very interesting that they were basically obsessed with painting the clapboards. They weren't prepainted. Every day or so they would finish a section or a couple feet and someone would rush in to paint it.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
2,384
I don't think I've seen this show up on any official Cambridge website, but it now has Op-Ed endorsements from B&T as well as the leadership of the City Council (it's before the BZA, which doesn't take orders from the Council):



During the meeting, a BZA member stated, "removing 14 units is a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the sake of avoiding a precedent of nine stories on Mass. Ave.” But we wonder, who is making said sacrifice? It certainly cannot be members of the BZA, as the majority of these members are homeowners here in Cambridge. If you don’t have anything to lose, how can it be a sacrifice?
Bear in mind: the MAYOR wrote that.

Beyond the value of the housing, what precedent? The proposal rises only 15 feet higher than its neighbor and doesn't seem prominent at all from a block or two away. If anything, double this height. Triple it. Tear down that absurdly hideous brick landscraper next to it while you're at it. Then tear down this BZA member's house and kick them out of the City to some village in the Berkshires where they'd clearly prefer to live.

1609270626823.png

1609270646911.png

1609270661182.png

1609270672018.png

1609270683735.png

1609270696922.png
 
Last edited:

RandomWalk

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
434
The color choices for the Beacon Street hotel don’t make for an inviting hotel.
 

Top