Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

“This is a real change … I don’t know how others feel about it, but it’s definitely something that bears discussion,” Davis said, contrasting the demand with the building-height restrictions found in a city such as Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...

Well now we know one reason Kendall looks so much like DC...the Mayor of Cambridge see it as a model to follow!
 
Nice to hear Volpe's going away too. Even if they turn it all into a park, it should at least be a nice public park instead of the current boring unused lawn around a suburban office park (granted a tall one).
 
It sounds like there's incrementally more hope that it will though no one is sure.

You'd think a deficit-busting federal government would pounce on an opportunity to make money off this. Maybe they're waiting for the price of the land to inflate even more.
 
BostonObserver said:
Is volpe going away?
Click to expand...

Where is it going? Texas? Florida? California?

Volpe spends $200 million a year. Even though not all of the spending is in house, that's the equivalent of 2,000 jobs at an annual salary of $100,000 per. Actually, the number of people working at Volpe is 1,150. Perhaps oinly in Cambridge or Berkeley would they kick 1,150 jobs out the door for a park.
 
I don't think anyone wants to see it move to another state, but maybe another neighborhood in the Boston metro where its presence would be invigorating rather than stultifying and there's a chance to render it a little more friendly to the existing urban fabric.
 
czsz said:
I don't think anyone wants to see it move to another state, but maybe another neighborhood in the Boston metro where its presence would be invigorating rather than stultifying and there's a chance to render it a little more friendly to the existing urban fabric.
Click to expand...

If LBJ hadn't bested Tip O'Neill, Kendall might have looked like this.

640_NASA-Clear-Lake-Site.jpg
Lots of green space for the Cantabrigians, too.
 
I don't see how NASA Mission Control couldn't work in a more urban context, either. Of course, it wouldn't have necessarily done so had it stayed in Cambridge, but that had as much if not way more to do with 1960s planning than security or technical needs. The current layout probably has a lot to do with Texas, too.

Anyway, none of this really affects the argument that the Volpe could be relocated within MA.
 
There's no reason to make Volpe go away -- just reclaim all of the empty and unused land that surrounds it. Some of that can be developed, some can be a park.
 
^ From what I understand, the city can't do that due to security precautions.
 
Last edited:
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ From what I understand, the city can't do that do to security precautions.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this before, but there's a long sliver of land along Binney street that has Volpe loading docks and misc services. I don't see why this cannot be consolidated on the main portion of their site.... There's enough room for at least a couple of good sized apartment towers...
 
choo said:
Sounds like the consultants for Kendall square are Arch readers... in a good way. Say Kendall needs to go vertical and new buildings like Koch are 300 feet of dead space (I agree). 6 30 story buildings of all residential would do wonders for the area.

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/04...-kendall-literally-about-to-run-out-of-space/
Click to expand...

Tall not wide, a strong emphasis on active ground-levels, and embracing high densities -- it's very encouraging to read these ideas being promoted in Cambridge, especially by City Councilors. I'm suddenly feeling optimistic about Kendall's future.
 
If you want Volpe to move, who is to pay for the cost of its new building: The city of Cambridge? A developer who wants the land that Volpe currently sits on? the American taxpayer? Goody Clancy?

As for 30 story buildings housing laboratories or tech space, I don't know that buildings of this height for such purposes exist anywhere. And I suspect there are very good design and construction reasons for why that is. Besides, if clients wanted such buildings, that's what would have been built. Instead.......

Eat your heart out Cambridge. This is Google's new space in Los Angeles, housing about the same number of people it has in Cambridge.

binoculars.jpg


Apple goes horizontal rather than vertical.

apple-new-building-design-3.jpg


apple-new-building-design-2.jpg


apple-new-campus-site-plan.jpg


Part of the interior of Pixar.
Pixar%5FHQ%5FInterior%201%2Ejpg
 
Eat your heart out Cambridge. This is Google's new space in Los Angeles, housing about the same number of people it has in Cambridge.
Click to expand...
Yes, how will Cambridge every compete with a giant set of binoculars. The gauntlet has truly been thrown!
Though I will say it's awesome that Google's new LA office is in Venice beach. That place is already entertaining enough with all the stoners, musclebound meatheads, surfers and wannabe models. Now toss in a few hundred software engineers and we might just have the most eclectic few blocks in America.
 
stellarfun said:
If you want Volpe to move, who is to pay for the cost of its new building: The city of Cambridge? A developer who wants the land that Volpe currently sits on? the American taxpayer? Goody Clancy?

As for 30 story buildings housing laboratories or tech space, I don't know that buildings of this height for such purposes exist anywhere. And I suspect there are very good design and construction reasons for why that is. Besides, if clients wanted such buildings, that's what would have been built. Instead.......
Click to expand...

I thought they were calling for 30+ story buildings of residential not lab space.
 
Columbia University in New York has 20 story lab buildings. The biggest issue was that they be reinforced because subway vibrations apparently still reach up to the upper levels...the height was not, as far as I know, an issue for the labs.

If you want Volpe to move, who is to pay for the cost of its new building: The city of Cambridge? A developer who wants the land that Volpe currently sits on? the American taxpayer? Goody Clancy?
Click to expand...

As the site gains in value, it should be auctioned to a private bidder who can cover the cost. Cambridge should find another vacant/underutilized parcel to turn into a park (it's not like the area lacks for these), otherwise it really will turn into a circus with lots of questions as to why taxpayers are footing the cost of the move.
 
czsz said:
Columbia University in New York has 20 story lab buildings. The biggest issue was that they be reinforced because subway vibrations apparently still reach up to the upper levels...the height was not, as far as I know, an issue for the labs.


As the site gains in value, it should be auctioned to a private bidder who can cover the cost. Cambridge should find another vacant/underutilized parcel to turn into a park (it's not like the area lacks for these), otherwise it really will turn into a circus with lots of questions as to why taxpayers are footing the cost of the move.
Click to expand...
Why current-era lab buildings don't go vertical:

http://www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/climate_neutral/space_planning.html

^^^Which references Columbia's NW Corner lab building.

Which is this building:
NWC_David_Sundberg_Images_-_2010DS49_416.jpg


Let's say a hypothetical new Volpe building costs $650 million*
(without land acquisition costs), so the 14 acres that are gained
by moving Volpe's six buildings out of Cambridge would have a
land value of about $45 million an acre, which is pretty pricey
land.
* Derived using construction costs for MIT's new lab at Hanscom.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top