Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Is that as tall as the new Watermark is getting? Watching it go up over the summer I was hoping it'd be at least as tall as the older building. Looking kinda stumpy as is.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell it ended up being a couple floors taller than it was supposed to be.

Will Cambridge EVER get a new tallest building to surpass the Eastgate Student Housing?

IMG_8274.jpg


IMG_7984.jpg


IMG_7977.jpg
 
^ Not under current Cambridge zoning

The Cambridge Center Mixed-Use District has the highest allowable height in the city Cambridge and it's only 250 feet:
14.34

Building Height Limitation. The maximum building height in the District shall be two hundred and fifty (250) feet. This requirement shall not apply to chimneys, water towers, air conditioning equipment, elevator bulkheads, skylights, ventilators and other necessary features appurtenant to buildings which are usually carried above roofs and are not used for human occupancy, nor to domes, towers or spires above buildings if such features are not used for human occupancy and occupy less than ten percent (10%) of the lot area, nor to wireless or broadcasting towers and other like unenclosed structures which occupy less than ten percent (10%) to the lot area.

Section 14.000, Mixed Use Development District: Cambridge Center
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Ordinance.aspx
Click to expand...
 
right near the watermark on mainstreet is a big parking lot behind one broadway. I walk by it often. I think MIT has plans for some infill, but I always think they should build a office space building facing broadway, with the back part near watermark at a high rise residential building. It is surrounded by labs, MIT classrooms, a hotel, and new high rise apartments. Build a nice signature tower with views that will never be blocked. Lower floors for innovation housing and maybe office, and let all the execs get the penthouses.

It would be a symbol of the Squares important place in the city and world. Probably won't happen. This is why I want to be a dictator ;)
 
I totally agree, one or (grasp) two 35 story towers would really make Cambridge's skyline official. It's already kind of something, I don't know why they wouldn't want to take it up a notch in a few spots to make a legit city skyline and not the tall office park/almost city skyline it now has. It's much the same way that one or two taller buildings in Downtown will really make that skyline pop out more as a whole.
 
If Cambridge cared about the environment and social justice as much as its inhabitants professed, there would be clusters of 30-40 story buildings at every Red Line stop.
 
Let's all chip in and buy space on a massive billboard in Cambridge with that quote from czsz on it.

:)
 
czsz said:
If Cambridge cared about the environment and social justice as much as its inhabitants professed, there would be clusters of 30-40 story buildings at every Red Line stop.
Click to expand...

That would require more than rhetoric during political campaigns, sheltering money and employing unemployable family members in phony charities, and bullshitting people at cocktail parties. Try to build a few more Central Squares around Cambridge, complete with derelicts and dependents, and one would see how 'diverse and tolerant' Cambridge really isn't.

Cambridge residents as a stereotype are really bigger Puritans than the Beacon Hill/Wellesley/Weston/Lincoln/Sudbury set, merely hiding behind a different set of hypocritical mores.
 
More ammunition in the case for amalgamating Greater Boston: now-autonomous clusters of selfish, hypocritical rich people could be steamrolled for the greater good.

They'd thank us once they saw the gorgeous views from the condos for sale at Harvard Square Towers.
 
czsz said:
If Cambridge cared about the environment and social justice as much as its inhabitants professed, there would be clusters of 30-40 story buildings at every Red Line stop.
Click to expand...

The trouble is convincing people that density is environmentally friendly to begin with. I think there's probably a lot of people in Cambridge who think their front yards are "green" because they're, well, green.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
The trouble is convincing people that density is environmentally friendly to begin with. I think there's probably a lot of people in Cambridge who think their front yards are "green" because they're, well, green.
Click to expand...

I know. I can't even seem to convince close friends otherwise.
 
It gets worse: there are people in Brighton who believe that the median strip of Comm Ave is "historic." Not Back Bay: Brighton.

Sigh.
 
Matthew said:
It gets worse: there are people in Brighton who believe that the median strip of Comm Ave is "historic." Not Back Bay: Brighton.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

I do think the trolleys zipping up and down the hill on Comm Ave is somewhat majestic and unique to Brighton, although it should be put underground through BU to Packards corner and the mall extended.

RE cambridge's skyline: I really feel like they should create some zoning equivilent to the high spine through the back bay. I really wonder how cantabridgians aren't horribly jealous when looking at their city off the redline vs boston. Especially at night when you have the citgo sign competing with the shell sign, it really all deserves to be a lot higher
 
davem said:
RE cambridge's skyline: I really feel like they should create some zoning equivilent to the high spine through the back bay. I really wonder how cantabridgians aren't horribly jealous when looking at their city off the redline vs boston. Especially at night when you have the citgo sign competing with the shell sign, it really all deserves to be a lot higher
Click to expand...

Jealous? Cantabrigians all want to live in a suburb, they just don't want to be called out on it.
 
Reminds me of when the Newbury Street groups were protesting the installation of bike racks because they weren't historic. And parking meters and giant SUVs are?
 
czsz said:
More ammunition in the case for amalgamating Greater Boston: now-autonomous clusters of selfish, hypocritical rich people could be steamrolled for the greater good.

They'd thank us once they saw the gorgeous views from the condos for sale at Harvard Square Towers.
Click to expand...

Um, no. I realize it feels good to say things like that, and that may be what you truly believe, but if Cambridge and its inhabitants want to be a low-rise, dense inner suburb, then that's what they have the right to be.

It's one thing to criticize towns for holding up regionally-important projects, but that's not what you're talking about. You have a vision for "what could and should be" in a place where (AFAIK) you don't live. We have enough problems in this city as it is when people who DO live in a place get to enact their visions and bulldoze residents (literally).

I've lived the past 6 years in 2 inner suburb college towns (Evanston and Berkeley) where citizens, despite liberal leanings, oppose tall buildings, though Evanston has a few that challenge that 250' limit, and let me tell you, they seem very tall in that context. Are you telling me that Berkeley, which has random concrete obstructions in its roadways to confuse drivers into not driving, dedicated "bike boulevards", constant plans for greenspace and "complete street" enhancements and dense public transit, as well as architectural standards that enforce public access and active streetfronts, is hypocritical in its progressivism because they aren't building skyscrapers at suburban BART stations?

This isn't about the city or its residents at all. This is about some skyscraper enthusiasts wanting tall buildings in every downtown area (which would then be mercilessly panned as soon as the renderings were released). I'm ranting, and I'm sorry about that, but I've seen comments like this one in my planning field and on this site too often. Rich people are still people, and they have more right than you or I have to guide the development of their community.
 
Equilibria is right to a point, though I think in general we go too far in restricting property rights in telling people what they can build. Outside of public safety, I think in general, the laws should be more hands off.

But even without tall buildings, Cambridge is not a dense inner suburb in many places. And they could easily stand to add more, low-rise density to areas within station catchment. Traditional cities don't have high rises but still achieve much higher densities than Cambridge, the North End being the canonical example. Allston is a more densely populated inner "suburb" than Cambridge, even. That is because Cantabridgians are resisting infill, even if it is low-rise.
 
^^ Thats just it, most of Cambridge's people don't voice any opinion. Vocal minorities demand that high rises don't get built. Most resident's probably don't care and would just accept it within a few years. I highly doubt North Cambridge would care too much if Kendall had a couple of tall towers (seeing how it would make perfect sense and all). B/c to be "green" is to increase density in already dense areas leaving land that actually fosters diverse ecosystems unmolested. But not everybody can see the forrest through the trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top