Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

Equilibria said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trust me, this has nothing to do with skyscraper enthusiasm. This is a critical issue of budgetary efficiency and housing fairness - which is why I characterized it as a "social justice" position. There's a huge demand for housing in the urbanized parts of Greater Boston and an even larger demand still for that housing near T stations. At the same time, the heavy rail portions of the T are underutilized relative to their potential capacity. The undersupply (and hence very high cost) of housing and the inefficient use of scant transit resources forced by selfish locals who don't want to see the "character of their neighborhood changed" is indeed hypocritical, no matter what other urban progressive causes they embrace.

So when you say it's okay to criticize people for holding up regionally important projects, I hope you see that radically increasing housing density at Red Line stops is one of those projects.

(Side note re: Matthew's point - heightened density without height in the mode of the North End would be an acceptable alternative as well, but would require much more reconfiguring of a place like Cambridge's cityscape, and would not be able to spread throughout the city to the extent that it could encompass the same residential capacity of highrises without new transit lines to compliment it.)
 
Equilibria said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'd say the City Council is at least hypocritical for listening to NIMBYs and rejecting BRT: http://systemicfailure.wordpress.co...rt-and-its-implications-for-complete-streets/

http://oaklandliving.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/reuben-duarte-why-berkeley-is-wrong-on-brt/

Note: I'm not blaming the majority of the residents there, but letting NIMBYs have influence over important decisions like this is a problem in all of Berkeley, Cambridge, and Boston.
 
There's a huge demand for housing in the urbanized parts of Greater Boston and an even larger demand still for that housing near T stations.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of new projects are designed around mass transit.
 
Speaking of unutilized spaces around the T, does anyone know if there has been talk of decking over the commuter rail along Somerville Ave adjacent to the Porter Square T Station? It's the perfect place for new housing/offices/retail and is such a big dead zone right now.
 
I think the parking lots across from lesley are owned by lesley and planned to be built in some period. Somerville is looking at rezoning around porter to union down somerville ave. Decking over the tracks is a goal by Mayor Curatone, but probably very far down the line at this point. Realistically, I would say post GLX to union. Then union gets built up and more pressure to porter. The deck would then have to be down with or done so not to preclude a future GLX from union to porter, which as F-Line has said the STEP group has been organized in ensuring.
 
12345 said:
The vast majority of new projects are designed around mass transit.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they're anywhere near satisfactory!

If Greater Boston actually cared about the housing issue, it would be trying to incentivize China-level vertical urban growth.

Oh, and in my previous post I forgot to reemphasize that the environment (preventing sprawl or at least car use) as another critical regional need for which building tall next to T stations should be seriously considered. And obviously sprawl is problematic from a budgetary perspective, too.
 
The Chinese government seems hell-bent on repeating all of the mistakes of "urban renewal" without learning any lessons. So I would not try to imitate Chinese-anything at this point.
 
Yeah, to be clear, I'm only talking about being Chinese with respect to providing lots of housing supply. That doesn't mean I also support their tendency toward towers in the park, expressways, boring architecture, etc.
 
choo said:
I think the parking lots across from lesley are owned by lesley and planned to be built in some period.
Click to expand...

Basically. Pretty sure Lesley is the number one property owner in Porter Square. Essentially every parking lot is owned by Lesley and their plan is to have retail for each with classes/dorms/offices on top of all of them.
 
czsz said:
In what century?
Click to expand...

No idea. But as I understand it, they're already in the process of moving AIB to Porter Square (not too sure how much there is to move from Kenmore Square?). They own the church at Mass Ave & Roseland. That's where it's going. Last semester they auctioned off all the church pews on the sidewalk.

EDIT: AIB = Art Institute of Boston
 
mdd said:
I don't know how this is possible, considering that Google just broke ground on a connector building on top of this very garage.
Click to expand...

From the article:
The 200,000-square-foot project would be built under and above the parking garage behind the Cambridge Center. Before construction can commence, Boston Properties must purchase a sliver of land form the city that would shrink the right of way to 80 feet from 100 feet.
Click to expand...
 
From Tuesday

IMG_1669.jpg


IMG_1670.jpg


IMG_1714.jpg


IMG_1716.jpg
 
Blue Box should probably get worst project, and yeah Watermark II does actually look nice. Wish it were taller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top