Cambridge Infill and Small Developments

Pierce said:
H&A were pretty middling overall, but they built some gorgeous buildings in Albany
Click to expand...

The fine folks in Albany would like to strongly disagree with you. Me, I don't mind 'em, but I'd never, ever, ever call them "gorgeous."
 
Two-floor Starbucks coming soon to the heart of Harvard Sq, where Omega Jewelers used to be. I guess it's good it's not another bank...but I enjoyed the fact that the Starbuckses in the Square were not front and center.

Starbucks aiming for the heart of Harvard Square
Posted September 29, 2010 09:08 AM

By Brock Parker, Town Correspondent

A two-story Starbucks Coffee Shop is headed for the heart of Harvard Square at the same corner that used to house landmark Cambridge restaurants the Tasty Sandwich Shop and Wursthaus.

The Seattle-based coffee chain is seeking to open its third caf? in Harvard Square at 1380 Massachusetts Ave. in space which most recently housed the now defunct Alpha Omega Jewelers store in the center of the square.

?It?s an amazing space, so from a design perspective our team felt we could do a really unique and beautiful store there, and that location is fantastic,? said Stacey Krum, a spokeswoman for Starbucks.

The company will appear before the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal Thursday night seeking a special permit for the store, which would operate in the first and second floor of the curved building at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and JFK Street.

The Starbucks spot is part of the historic Read Block, a building which housed the Tasty Sandwich Shop and the Wursthaus until both eateries closed in the late 1990s.

Charles Sullivan, executive director of the Cambridge Historical Commission, said preserving the block was a ?major issue? in the 1990s. At the time, Cambridge Savings Bank, which purchased the building in 1994, planned to demolish it to make way for a new structure. The bank eventually backed off the proposal and decided to renovate instead.

Sullivan said the fa?ade of the building dates back to 1896, but the facade actually united four older buildings on the corner that date back as far as the 1780s.

?It?s unique that the buildings survived this long,? Sullivan said. ?Everything else in Harvard Square was redeveloped in the early 20th Century.?

Read Block is now protected by the city, but the Starbucks proposal is not expected to be reviewed by the Cambridge Historic Commission because it is not expected to alter the facade, Sullivan said.

Krum said Starbucks is working to develop a design for the coffee shop that will preserve the culture and history of both the city and Harvard University.

Starbucks will seek to minimize the environmental impact of the construction and will also seek LEED-certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for the coffee shop, Krum said.

While Starbucks already has two coffee shops in Harvard Square at 31 Church St. and 36 JFK St. in The Garage, Krum said the company has no plans to close either location.

?We think there is plenty of business to go around in the neighborhood,? Krum said.
Click to expand...
 
Better than a jeweler and a bank, and sorta returns the corner to its previous uses as The Tasty and Mug & Muffin. I'm surprised Starbucks would want to keep The Garage location after opening this one, though.
 
While Starbucks already has two coffee shops in Harvard Square at 31 Church St. and 36 JFK St. in The Garage, Krum said the company has no plans to close either location.
Click to expand...

Yes, these Starbucks are always crowded, and they might even have a chance of sustaining business at all three, but...really? Seriously?

I mean, yes, there is that famous corner in Vancouver where Starbucks sits across from another Starbucks, but three in such a small area is really pushing the envelope.
 
both of the two currently existing Starbucks are horribly designed imo...hopefully the new one is nice and maximizes its space...I can understand keeping the one across from the movie theater but they should ditch the garage one...
 
I like the garage one, actually. They redesigned it only last year with much nicer furniture, and it's always had the interesting feature of being lifted just high enough off the sidewalk to give an interesting perspective on pedestrians below.

The one on Church St. is shit, though. Horribly overcrowded, always a snaking line, nowhere to sit.

Just remembered, also: the Harvard Coop cafe sells Starbucks coffee too. Jesus.
 
228.jpg
230-1.jpg
232.jpg
234.jpg
343.jpg
 
kz1000ps said:
The fine folks in Albany would like to strongly disagree with you. Me, I don't mind 'em, but I'd never, ever, ever call them "gorgeous."
Click to expand...

To each his own, but I love them.... is it great urban design and planning? no. Do they function well? Are they comfortable to be in? I have no clue. But I think they are really beautiful pieces of sculpture. (which is not to say great "architecture" in the full sense, but I had a great afternoon photographing them once)
 
Agreed re: their being good sculpture. Also, great pics; I especially like the one where you caught the numbers on those four identical agency buildings -- I've never noticed those gold numbers before and I've stood there dozens of times!
 
czsz said:
Actually, when the Project on Public Spaces ran a scathing assessment of Empire State Plaza a few years ago many locals chimed in to disagree and talk about how much they loved having it there:

http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=760
Click to expand...

The ESP has always been one of my favorite places. Both the plaza and the mall under it are etched into my memory. It feels so dead because Albany doesn't have much of an economy. You get more people in the city and the ESP will be more active.
 
Thanks for that link. It seems a lot of the pro-ESP arguments revolve around it being a good place to see a concert or go for a jog. That's fine, but how about the price the city paid to make allll that space. And the consensus opinion I've gathered from my (non-architectural) friends is that they think it's funky, ugly, and few go there.
 
czsz said:
I like the garage one, actually. They redesigned it only last year with much nicer furniture, and it's always had the interesting feature of being lifted just high enough off the sidewalk to give an interesting perspective on pedestrians below.

The one on Church St. is shit, though. Horribly overcrowded, always a snaking line, nowhere to sit.

Just remembered, also: the Harvard Coop cafe sells Starbucks coffee too. Jesus.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if the new Starbucks served hotdogs.
 
kz1000ps said:
Thanks for that link. It seems a lot of the pro-ESP arguments revolve around it being a good place to see a concert or go for a jog. That's fine, but how about the price the city paid to make allll that space. And the consensus opinion I've gathered from my (non-architectural) friends is that they think it's funky, ugly, and few go there.
Click to expand...

Funny, those were my thoughts about the rest of downtown Albany. The Plaza makes the city worthwhile. Without it, the place would feel like an economically destitute Hudson Valley village, wholly unfit to be capital of New York. No place made me sympathize with Robert Moses and Le Corbusier more.
 
What's that building on Mass Ave that has the sidewalk closed? It's being done by Harvard, that much I know. I walk by this thing a couple times a month and I keep forgetting to take a picture or look it up on here. Anyone have a rendering?
 
Don't know if anything is going on in these pictures, but where else am I supposed to post them? :D The density in Cambridge is getting pretty unreal.

IMG_6893.jpg


IMG_6892.jpg


IMG_6896.jpg
 
Cambridge rescinds ordinance regulating signs on tall buildings

By David Abel
Globe Staff / November 3, 2010

A new sign ordinance that some say could have dramatically altered the Cambridge skyline was rescinded this week by the City Council, little more than a month after councilors approved the zoning changes.

City officials and business leaders who supported the law said it simplified a complex zoning process by establishing firm guidelines for commercial signs that are more than 20 feet off the ground. Critics argued that the law would have sullied the skyline by allowing companies to attach more lighted signs to their buildings.

?The reason we opposed it was because we see the parklands and the Charles as a big part of Cambridge,?? said Renata von Tscharner, founder and president of the Charles River Conservancy. ?It would have a visual impact on the city and affect the aesthetics if you?re facing brand names on buildings. It would make it seem more commercial.??

The law, passed 6 to 3 by city councilors in September, was rescinded on Monday by an 8-to-1 vote after Terry Ragon, chief executive officer of InterSystems Corp. created a group called Save Our Skyline and led a petition campaign to reverse the council?s decision. In place of the law, councilors asked the city manager to create a task force to examine the issue.

Ragon opposed the law after Microsoft Corp., which shares One Memorial Drive with InterSystems, proposed putting a Microsoft sign on the building.

Supporters say the law would have improved a system in which companies that want to install signs on tall buildings had to apply for a zoning variance and prove they would suffer hardship without signs. They argued that it established a more deliberative permitting process.

The law stipulated that signs could not exceed 90 square feet on buildings more than 100 feet tall and banned billboards, neon, and retail signs.

?It was worthwhile to make these modest changes to the law,?? said Terrence Smith, director of government affairs at the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. ?It?s not a bad thing to know who?s in a building. It would have also helped identify Cambridge as a center of technology and innovation, and that these are not anonymous buildings with anonymous companies.??

Councilor Leland Cheung, who had supported the law, said he voted against it this time because too many people did not understand its purpose.

He said Ragon issued so much misinformation about the law that supporting it became untenable. Ragon did not return calls seeking comment.

?We did what we did because of what we thought was in the best interests of the city, but in the end, what was in the best interests of the city was rescinding the law and trying to walk people through it to understand it,?? he said.

Link
 
More pics on previous page
This is a canyon
img0372t.jpg

By gw2500 at 2010-11-14
img0373q.jpg

By gw2500 at 2010-11-14
And this street, might be 3rd?, has really stepped its game up too.
img0376h.jpg

By gw2500 at 2010-11-14
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top