Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

0466.jpg
046-12.jpg
045-11.jpg
 
^ This "skyline" needs height.

It also needs zoning that mandates ground floor retail.

What would it take to get smaller footprints?
 
It would take residential and retail, 2 things that are not in demand at MIT or it's environs. That said, a few of the newer developments are making attempts to build in the streetscape (Archstone, Genzyme) with better pedestrian amenities.
 
It's so infuriatingly short. Like they cut off the final story that was meant to cap it off.
 
This is the first time I've heard of this development:

1__1262264223_5869.jpg


Neighbors oppose church?s ?gift from God?
Condo partnership frays ties with some in Cambridge community

By Meghan E. Irons
Globe Staff / December 31, 2009

CAMBRIDGE - When the roof leaks at St. James?s Episcopal Church, water seeps into the sacristy and soaks the organ case and baptistry.

?It?s baptism by rainfall here,?? said the Rev. Holly Lyman Antolini, as she pointed out holes in walls, stained-glass windows that have buckled, and a parish hall that will have to be torn down and replaced.

Antolini would like to have repairs done. But St. James?s, a fixture in Porter Square for more than a century, is strapped for cash.

So imagine her delight when Oaktree Development, a Cambridge company that creates urban multifamily housing, came tapping at the church?s door a year ago, offering a financial lifeline.

At the church?s urging, the two formed a partnership and proposed to build a four-story, 78,000-square-foot development on St. James?s historic property at Massachusetts Avenue and Beech Street. If finalized, the church would lease the bulk of its property to the developer for 99 years, and the developer would get plenty of room to erect its proposed L-shaped building around the sanctuary that would include 46 condo units, retail space, an underground parking garage, and a new parish hall on the first floor.

If the project gets the green light next year, Antolini said, the deal would allow St. James?s to focus on its urban ministries instead of on raising millions to fix up its property.

?It was a gift from God,?? Antolini said.

But the partnership has caused a rift in the church?s otherwise harmonious relationship with its North Cambridge neighbors.

Residents, weary of big development?s squeeze into their tight-knit community, now find themselves squaring off against an unlikely foe, a church, over the future of a landmark.

?It?s not that we are against the church,?? said Lydia Gralla, a Beech Street resident. ?But we are against the developer. But it gets weird because the church is the developer.??

Discussions among neighbors, congregants, and the developers have been contentious. Meetings on the proposed project have broken down into shouting matches. E-mail exchanges between congregants and residents have been heated.

A mediator has been called to help residents and the developer find common ground, but hard lines have been drawn over the issue.

?There is so much heat and hostility that people haven?t been talking very well,?? said John Howard, chairman of the Porter Square Neighbors Association.

Residents say that while they support the church?s efforts to secure its financial future, their interests in the project have not been recognized.

?From the very beginning, neighbors reacted negatively to a number of the features in the project: the height, the mass of the building, and its fit into the neighborhood,?? said John Armstrong, an abutter and president of a separate neighborhood group formed to negotiate with the developer. ?These have always been our issues.??

Residents say the added traffic in and out of the parking entrance on busy Beech Street would be untenable. And they are fighting efforts to build on the spot occupied by the church garden, which they said would destroy a rare green space in a dense stretch of buildings.

?Is this building a violation of a North Cambridge neighborhood??? Armstrong said. ?We think it [is].??

Oaktree defends its proposal, saying the planned development is in scale with other buildings along Massachusetts Avenue.

Gwendolen Noyse, a partner at Oaktree, said the company has begun to address concerns voiced by residents and by two historical commissions that have preservation restrictions on the property. Oaktree has reduced the size of the proposed building by more than 17,000 square feet, she said, and cut the number of floors in certain parts of the building, which abutters say would block light, from four to three.

?I think it?s going to be a great project,?? Noyse said. ?There are people with no ax to grind who have looked at it who said this is a brilliant solution.??

St. James?s Episcopal Church is rich with history, having been founded in 1864 by the Rev. Andrew Croswell, a retired Episcopal priest. The sanctuary was constructed by Cambridge builders and master craftsmen. The peach-colored stone sanctuary that stands in Porter Square today is a Romanesque style structure built as a result of a generous contribution in 1888 by Mary Longfellow Greenleaf, the sister of poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. The building has stained-glass windows and a historic bell.

When Antolini took over as rector more than a year ago, the church was falling apart. It had depleted $600,000 from its capital campaign to repair its bell tower, Antolini said, and had to get a city grant to make up the difference.

Soon, Oaktree, which has developed properties in Cambridge for nearly four decades, came calling. It was building condos on a former carwash site adjacent to the church and wanted to expand the project onto a strip of St. James?s garden.

?We didn?t choose to be in the middle of a controversy,?? Antolini said. ?It?s not like we said let?s go make money for fun.??

Before any building takes place, the project needs to win approvals from a host of city, state, and church entities. The Cambridge and Massachusetts historical commissions, which have expressed concern about the project?s size and scope and the design of the historic garden, must sign off on it. A Cambridge hearing on the matter is slated for Jan. 7. The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and St. James?s vestry must also give their OK.

The city?s planning board has given the project conditional approval for a special permit to build.

Howard, who heads the Porter Square neighbors group, said he believes residents have lost ?on big issues,?? but says there is still room to get everyone on board. ?If this project fails, the church would be left in a very bad financial position . . . and we?d be in a much worse position,?? he said.

He says that he is not opposed to some kind of housing being constructed on the site, but that ?I would much rather have a development in which residents have a voice.??
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...12/31/neighbors_oppose_churchs_gift_from_god/

Here's a PDF with details of the proposed development. Scroll to p. 18 for elevations:

http://www.stjames-cambridge.org/storage/StJamesRedevelopment.pdf
 
Looked at the proposal, totally within scale. If it were to get built no one?s life will change one bit in that neighborhood. N?s are really turning into bullies IMO, there entitlement is out of hand. Arguments about 4 story structures blocking light makes me want to buy a gun. I can only hope politicians can one day garner up enough balls to make these folks eat a diaper full of logic
 
It's as much a Somerville issue as it is a Cambridge issue, since going down Beech Street you hit the border within about 100 feet.

That corner could certainly accept a building of that size. The parking is a legitimate issue but one that could be addressed.

I had my second car accident at that light, back in the day. I rear-ended the car in front of me after he started going then stopped abruptly. You'd think it was my own fault but I was (rightfully) able to convince the insurance company that it was the other driver's fault since ... he was not a licensed driver and had gone out with his friend to learn how to drive. My tip to him, "This isn't the way."
 
The main objection I've heard from the neighbors is that the development's driveway and garage should properly empty out onto Mass. Ave. rather than little Beech Street. This seems to me to be a legitimate concern.

There is already a break in the median at this location for the (recently closed) car wash, so no change is needed to Mass. Ave. to accomodate the driveway here. Why burden Beech Street with it?
 
Actually it makes way more sense for these cars to be turning on to Beech Street first than to burden Mass. Ave. There's probably little to no traffic on Beech as is, whereas it would be difficult for both those turning into Mass. Ave. and those who have to watch out for them to deal with another driveway emptying into the avenue. It would also be a bigger burden to pedestrians on Mass. Ave. than on Beech.

Also, we're talking about, what, tens of meters between where cars would enter Beech Street and where they would reach Mass. Ave.? I don't think this is a legitimate concern at all.
 
Beech Street is actually very busy as it is the main street connecting Cambridge to Somerville in this area. The new residential driveway would not burden Mass. Ave. in any way since it would just replace the car wash driveway that's already there.
 
I think it would be better to have cars going inbound on Mass Ave queuing at the Beech Street traffic light (for a Beech St. entrance) than at the car wash curb cut.

Could the fire department have a problem with a line of cars waiting to turn left (into a garage entrance on Mass Ave) blocking the fire station? I guess that would only be pertinent if the amount of traffic the site generates will be greater than the car wash.
 
Reminds me of the problems Van had with Atlantic Wharf - unnecessary embellishment that takes away from an otherwise elegant design. In this case, I'm talking about some of the mullions and window frames on that curtain wall.
 
I think that is a heart research lab, so in many ways its functionality is very similar to a biotech lab.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top