Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

Harvard Graduate School of Design just bought three large Victorians from the Jesuits. The residences are at 42 and 44 Kirkland St., and 20 Sumner Rd. These all abut. So it will be interesting to see how HGSD gussies up these Victorians.

Harvard did not buy four other houses the Jesuits have for sale in Cambridge. One is at 7 Kirkland Rd., near the three above, and the others are on Oxford st, Avon St., and Linnaean St, and I think more in the midst of Lesley.
 
If Harvard still had the money to do so, it might have moved some to vacant lots and built on the land, as HLS did.

They'll probably just get "gussied up" now, though. Meh.
 
alewife
145-3.jpg
146-1.jpg
148-3.jpg
149-3.jpg
150-3.jpg
151-3.jpg
152-2.jpg
154-1.jpg
155-3.jpg
156-1.jpg
158-3.jpg
159-3.jpg
161-3.jpg
 
Is this series of developments slated to have some sort of "Main Street"? Some hub, some street-facing retrail row?
 
stellarfun said:
Harvard Graduate School of Design just bought three large Victorians from the Jesuits. The residences are at 42 and 44 Kirkland St., and 20 Sumner Rd. These all abut. So it will be interesting to see how HGSD gussies up these Victorians.

Harvard did not buy four other houses the Jesuits have for sale in Cambridge. One is at 7 Kirkland Rd., near the three above, and the others are on Oxford st, Avon St., and Linnaean St, and I think more in the midst of Lesley.
Click to expand...


Were these part of the Weston Jesuit school? I believe these Jesuits are moving to the new housing at BC which is about 90% completed.
 
As far as I know most/much of what is/has been vacated by Weston Jesuit has been filled by Lesley University (primarily at the EDS main campus on Brattle St.)
 
palindrome said:
Were these part of the Weston Jesuit school? I believe these Jesuits are moving to the new housing at BC which is about 90% completed.
Click to expand...
Yes. All seven houses were owned by the Weston School Jesuits, who now have new digs on BC's campus.
 
Renovations at Rindge and Latin

4894246819_bdaab89eac_b.jpg


4894248425_cda20b4e67_b.jpg


^ those spandrels leave me wishing for some authentic art deco polished enamel panels

4894844894_0c07ac9d73_b.jpg


4894251449_0d11de16f3_b.jpg


4894252863_2e84fa1e51_b.jpg
 
Cambridge approves changes for signs atop tall office buildings
Posted September 28, 2010 08:14 AM

By Brock Parker, Town Correspondent

The Cambridge City Council approved a controversial zoning change Monday that will make it easier for companies to affix lighted signs with their names atop tall office buildings in the city.

The law has been criticized by some who argued that lighted signs high atop office buildings would have adverse affects on park lands and the Charles River.

But the Council voted 6-3 in favor of the zoning changes, including a provision allowing property owners and some tenants to obtain a special permit to place a sign at any height below the roof line of non-residential buildings with at least 100,000 square feet.

Existing regulations do not allow companies to place signs above 20 feet high on a building unless the property owner or tenant obtains a variance to the law by proving the height limit creates a hardship for their business.

City Councilor Leland Cheung said the variance system treated neighboring businesses differently and wasn?t a rational system.

?The whole reason why we?re doing this is because the previous system gave us signs we?re not actually happy with,? Cheung said.

The new zoning laws do not allow the signs to be lit internally, but would allow the signs to be illuminated with the use of floodlights. While existing laws do not allow signs larger than 60 square feet, the proposed changes would allow signs to be as large as 90 square feet if a building is more than 100 feet tall.

The proposal would allow the signs on buildings in office or industrial areas including Kendall Square and west of Alewife Brook Parkway, but the signs must be for businesses that rent a significant amount of space in the building.

James Rafferty, an attorney representing Microsoft Corp., which leases space in a 17-story office building at One Memorial Drive, has argued the zoning changes are needed to establish specific standards for corporate signs, rather than what has been a subjective variance process.

But the changes have drawn criticism from the Charles River Conservancy, which argued the signs could have an adverse effect on neighboring park lands, and InterSystems Corp, which also leases space in One Memorial Drive has vehemently opposed the new regulations.

City Councilor Sam Seidel said Monday he thought the sign proposal is good legislation, but he voted against it because he said he has an issue with corporatizing of ?everything we experience.?

?I don?t think it?s necessarily a good thing that we as a community or a society feel the need to put a branding mark on every single surface we can find, which is a tendency that we seem to be doing more and more,? Seidel said.

Seidel joined council members Craig Kelley and Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis in voting against the changes. Mayor David Maher voted in favor of the ordinance, along with Cheung and council members Denise Simmons, Tim Toomey, Marjorie Decker and Ken Reeves.
Click to expand...
 
careful..... after my hometown of Toledo, Ohio made a similar ruling they started getting this:
3011599398_e739f5e0ca_b.jpg


This is an existing, decent (for ohio), Harrison and Abramovitz building from the 70s/80, though I hope Cambridge would at least have some decent standards to prevent something like this....
 
That building looks like a Hancock that put on some pounds.
 
That building looks like a typical Harrison And Abramovitz... Banal.
 
Toledo is my home town, too. I was surprised the city let them apply that signage to it's most visible building.
 
Last edited:
czsz said:
That building looks like a Hancock that put on some pounds.
Click to expand...

I thought it was the Hancock but with a Photoshopped name on top. I had to look closer until I realized it was a different building.
 
H&A were pretty middling overall, but they built some gorgeous buildings in Albany
 
I guess that sign should bother me, but it doesn't. Do you dislike the word 'PRUDENTIAL' on the Pru?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top