Central Square

[ablarc]

Central Square in case you haven't noticed is now become an annex of the bio/pharma/energy/high/nano tech development spawned by MIT in Kendal Square. Novartis, Forest City Development {former Simplex property} and others have and are investing hundreds of millions of $ and others will follow suit.

I would hide and watch what happens to Central Sq. in the next few dozen years as the area surges

^ MITcentricity.

Of all the suggestions above the only ones that are obviously good:
1) Red-Line Blue Line connection somewhere {Charles, DTX}
2) Open the South end of Central Square Station to general access on both sides of Mass Ave.
3) Ban new parking lots -- garages are ok

Westy


Westy

Oh, I bet you liked this one:

4. They landmarked all nine of Central Square's buildings that had lasting architectural or historic value.
And they did so with wisdom that was applauded by historians, preservationists and architecture critics.

Or how about this?:

It was the start of the Era of Good Will.

.

 

[ablarc]

I like many of ablarc's regulatory suggestions, but would offer tax incentives rather than FAR bonuses to stay within the absolute height limit.

But why? Thing is, tax incentives cost the taxpayer money, while FAR bonuses are free.

 

[justin]

Because an iron-clad height limit is the premise of my proposal. Urbanistically, I want Mass Ave to be a boulevard with a consistent street wall, of the sort that is already defined intermittently by the old apartment buildings (maybe my proposed heights are off, but that's the idea). To make what would be in effect a major development push politically palatable, I propose limiting it in height as well as in extent by confining it to Mass Ave. I don't know whether it would work, but I am trying to fashion a proposal that isn't 100% wishful thinking.

I also want to counter this forum's phallic fixation. Skyscrapers are neither necessary nor sufficient for a good city. Could Central Sq. benefit from an iconic slender skyscraper? Sure, but any such proposal would be a red rag for the NIMBYs while distracting from the real problem, or at least opportunity for improvement, which is Mass Ave's many missing teeth. So many of the sterile development debates in Boston are about height; that's what I'd like to short-circuit.

As for losing 'the quirky single-story outposts like the Middle East': honestly, I'm not in Cambridge right now and I don't remember the actual buildings czsz is refering to. Perhaps it's because they're not that quirky after all? Whatever loss there is will be more than compensated by making Mass Ave into a real city boulevard. I'm all for preserving the joints they're housing, but there's no reason developers can't be leaned on to provide space in the new buildings.

justin

 

[czsz]

The architecture of the buildings I'm talking about isn't remarkable in and of itself. What would be lost is the shopworn, home-grown quality of them, the artificiality of attempting to stuff institutions that have grown up organically into brand new buildings. I don't think their patrons would want to frequent an establishment located in a building like the Hotel Commonwealth, even if they did manage to reopen in it. Beyond which - the Middle East has three restaurants and two performance spaces, and the People's Republik is one of the most popular bars in the neighborhood - it would lose a lot of these places departed, emptying it perhaps to the degree that DT Crossing is hollowed out right now. Beyond aesthetics, they're small businesses, and probably wouldn't be able to afford the rents demanded by new buildings, especially with the pressure of the MIT biotech zone expanding and the ongoing gentrification of the area. Cambridge is a fragile city; it only took the replacement of a few quirky outposts in Harvard Square to turn it into a de facto mall.

Terrible photos, which don't make my case very well. You'd best understand by visiting and seeing that they generate some of the larger crowds in the neighborhood, especially at night, and have a colorful vibrancy to them unmatched by most other local facades.

The Middle East:

People's Republik (in the shadow of a Soviet style concrete bloc apartment building, which is too perfect):

The house next door and its parking spaces can go, though:

Another bit of Central Square quirk worth preserving? (if not the building next door)

 

[Ron Newman]

And yet another:

Tear places like this down, and the city loses its soul.

 

[ablarc]

Cambridge should designate a redevelopment corridor along the entire length of Mass Ave, of variable width up to two blocks. This corridor's main zoning rule, which is absolute and non-negotiable, is that no new building may exceed 11 stories or go below nine. Existing buildings of under nine stories, unless historically significant, are hit with an sprawl-abetters tax on the height difference to encourage redevelopment. This might just work since it has something for everybody...

...the proposal is essentially conservative: it's not about Manhattanizing Mass Ave, it's about Mass Ave-izing all of it.

I like your Haussmannesque idea that a nascent urban boulevard's streetwall height should be specified by zoning. That height of 9-11 stories is just right for Mass Ave, and could run from Vassar Street to the Arlington line with a hiatus for Harvard Square from Harvard Street to Everett Street.

Other potential urban boulevards aren't hard to identify in Boston. Here's a possible list, complete with suggested streetwall heights, from most obvious to least:

Boylston Street from Washington Street to Park Drive: 11-14 stories.

Cambridge Street from City Hall Plaza to Charles River Circle: 9-11 stories.

Huntington Avenue from Copley Square to Heath Street: 11-14 stories

Columbus Avenue from Park Square to the other end: 5-8 stories

Commonwealth Avenue, Boston-Brookline, from Kenmore Square to Boston College: 5-7 stories.

Beacon Street, Brookline: Kenmore Square to Cleveland Circle: 5-8 stories

Harvard Street, Brookline and Harvard Avenue, Allston from Brookline Village to Cambridge St.: 5-7 stories

The west side of Main St., Charlestown from Austin St. to its northerly end: 5 stories

Washington Street from Tufts Medical Center to Dudley: 7-9 stories.

Your idea reprised:

Because an iron-clad height limit is the premise of my proposal. Urbanistically, I want Mass Ave to be a boulevard with a consistent street wall, of the sort that is already defined intermittently by the old apartment buildings (maybe my proposed heights are off, but that's the idea). To make what would be in effect a major development push politically palatable, I propose limiting it in height as well as in extent by confining it to Mass Ave.

 

[whighlander]

Ablarc,

I think that your concept of setting a flat top on all the street walls for many blocks lacks inspiration. In most large structures the interior spaces have varying ceiling heights depending on the function. Similarly, there are places where the street wall clearly should be higher than your limits and other places where it ought to be or at least could be less.

For example, Boylston Street?s walls shouldn't be as high as 11 to 14 stories on the south side near to the Common and the Public Garden and it could and perhaps should be closer to 20 stories by the Pru where the street is wider and background buildings are more massive.

Similarly I wouldn't want Huntington to be limited to 14 stories near the Pru {18 to 20 or even 24 is reasonable} and I certainly wouldn't want to see it uniformly even 10 stories near Symphony Hall and the MFA {4 to 6 would be more friendly to those venerable institutions}

Cambridge Street is certainly wide enough to support the height on the Beacon Hill side. If you were to replace some of the lower structures on the MGH side - -then there might be some undesirable encroachment on the Old West Church and Harrison Gray Otis House.

I would also add to your list the Greenway. I think that the Greenway could support 20 to 25 story walls {such as the Intercontinental Hotel} except for the section near to Salem and Hanover Streets where 4 to 8 stories should be the limit on the North end side and probably 8 to 12 stories near to the Bulfinch Triangle.

Another great boulevard would be Dorchester Avenue from Summer Street after the South Postal Annex is removed and extending a few blocks over the bridge to Broadway. This boulevard could support a 12 to 15 story wall or perhaps 8 to 10 with 15 to 20 story towers up to the Fort Point Channel. On the other side of the Channel the wall should be trending down to match Southy

Westy

 

[ablarc]

Boring ol' Paris. Needs some building height variation.

 

[czsz]

I was actually bored by a lot of Paris. Especially where Hausmann got his hands dirty. The wide, straight boulevards aren't so great when they get lazy and exclusively residential.

 

[ckb]

ablarc, its great that you're thinking big and bold, but I wonder if you appreciate what already exists in Central Square, and what would be threatened by implementing all of what you propose.

Primarily, Central Square at its best is already one of the most livable, urban feeling, mixed-classed neighborhoods in the Boston area. The fact that things can be a little rough around the edges helps to give small businesses the flexibility they need to take chances and innovate. 3 live music venues at the Middle East, and another at TT the Bear's book a variety of innovative and up-and-coming new music. Middlesex and Phoenix Landing are consistent homes for quality DJ's. And it's probably no coincidence that Harmonix, the company behind the smash hit video game, Guitar Hero, is based in Central Square.

Sure, there is a Starbucks, a Dunkin Donuts, and an ABP, but Central also has the 1369, Mariposa, and Hot Off the Press. A McDonalds and a Wendy's, but also Central Kitchen and Rendezvous. Not to mention Mary Chungs, Pepper Sky Thai, Tibeten, a multitude of Indian, and the Falafel Palace.

Some points that I find particularly noteworthy, either for better or for worse:

3. They forbade more than two existing adjacent properties (of whatever size) to be developed by the same entity as part of a single project.
This had the effect of preserving Central Square's scale, which had nothing whatever to do with building height --something the elixirized former-nimbys readily perceived in their new-found intimacy with Truth.

Great idea.

5. They notified all owners of unlandmarked single-story buildings and existing parking lots that they had three years to submit redevelopment plans
or have their properties taken by eminent domain (with market-value compensation). You can imagine how quickly these fallow properties sprouted development.

I think the immediate ban on single-story buildings is unfair. They are quite prolific in Central, and I don't think the neighborhood would successful survive such upheaval. Plus, the "divey-ness" of some of these properties are part of the successful grittyness and edginess that allows for a thriving, non-homogenous scene.

7. They founded the Prospect Street Railway, a historic streetcar line to run up Prospect Street to Inman Square and down River Street,
across the bridge, to Brighton Center. Like the old, much-lamented Huntington Avenue line, this was to have no ROW separation, therefore it was not light rail. Power is from a winter-snowstorm-heated slot between the tracks, thus eliminating unsightly overhead wires. Visitors love it and residents ride it too. Inman Square is now on the tourist circuit with even more top-notch restaurants stretching along Prospect Street Railway between the two squares. Ridership is surprisingly high (must be because it's fun).

Great idea, although I think of Inman as a great "hidden secret" because it is relatively hidden. But, if you're running this line from Inman over to Brighton Center, might as well take it all the way into Union Square (possibly the next outpost of multi-class edginess if it had better transportation connections (green line extension).

8. They adjusted Central Square's zoning such that night-time entertainment uses were encouraged --including a two-block stretch for adult entertainment
parallel to Mass Ave on parking-lot-blighted Bishop Allen Drive. The good bishop's name provided the Square a droll disconnect of street name and function. Boston was glad to see combat zoning move across the river.

I know you love the idea of adult entertainment, but it just isn't appropriate here -- this directly abuts a residential zone ... and is the wrong kind of grit.

FAR bonuses are an enlightened zoning idea ... promotes good urban qualities within the context of existing rules and regulations that developers and zoning boards understand.

18. They bought the Post Office from the Feds and leased it to a developer who converted its splendid deco presence into a multi-story shopping mall.
Bustling commerce moved in right across from City Hall.

The P.O. is too small for a mall. Would make a nicer public library, though, than the concrete box buried back on Green St. & Pearl.

25. In a bold gift to walkers, they closed Western Ave. and River St. between Mass Ave and Franklin St., thus finally creating the Square in Central Square.
The big church became a focal point of the plaza, and slender towers sprang up on the fallow parcels on Green at Western Avenue and on Green between Western and River. The latter parcel welcomed the Arthur D. Little Building, Central Square's tallest.

Bah. There are no easy alternate routes and River/Western is a major thoroughfare eventually connecting to the River Drives and the Mass Pike. Already the prevention of left turns in this intersection creates extra traffic on minor roads. I think the placement of the Harvard T headhouse in the middle of the Harvard Square intersection was a bad idea there, too. This place is busy because it is a crossroads and a transit hub.

26. As a public service, the Parks Department built a recreational park for readers. It consisted of seven stories of low rent space for used bookstores. It sat on top of a reborn Orson Welles Cinema, also low rent, that tempts with seven silver screens: two for revival double features of classic movies, two for indie movies, two for foreign films and one for non-stop Bollywood.

7 stories? Even with the idea of a "recreational park" to give low rent space to used bookstores, its too much. And why do bookstores get preference? Why not a library that is actually free to all? What about music stores? Art? And why is your publicly supported movie house competing with the privately run Brattle and HFA in Harvard (and the Somerville theater in Davis, and the Coolidge in Coolidge Corner, and the Kendall cinemas in Kendall ... yes there is good support for film in Boston, but not THAT much)?



A final comment, if I had the city officials drinking Kool-Aid, I would make smaller tweaks in Central and Harvard, and spend the big bucks and grand changes in the no-man's land along Main St. and in towards Kendall Sqaure (no it is not too late to effect many of the same changes you suggest in Central in the Kendall area) ... starting with an infill T station at Main and Portland and including a complete recaptiulation of the public housing north of Main St. Even with expanded southern entrances to the Central T, it is still too far from MIT. A new T station here could connect to a transit line on the Grand Junction right of way ...

 

[ablarc]

ablarc, its great that you're thinking big and bold, but I wonder if you appreciate what already exists in Central Square, and what would be threatened by implementing all of what you propose.

Primarily, Central Square at its best is already one of the most livable, urban feeling, mixed-classed neighborhoods in the Boston area. The fact that things can be a little rough around the edges helps to give small businesses the flexibility they need to take chances and innovate. 3 live music venues at the Middle East, and another at TT the Bear's book a variety of innovative and up-and-coming new music. Middlesex and Phoenix Landing are consistent homes for quality DJ's. And it's probably no coincidence that Harmonix, the company behind the smash hit video game, Guitar Hero, is based in Central Square.

Sure, there is a Starbucks, a Dunkin Donuts, and an ABP, but Central also has the 1369, Mariposa, and Hot Off the Press. A McDonalds and a Wendy's, but also Central Kitchen and Rendezvous. Not to mention Mary Chungs, Pepper Sky Thai, Tibeten, a multitude of Indian, and the Falafel Palace.

And something tells you I want to get rid of all that? Hey, I like Central Square --that's why I picked it-- I used to live near it. But no place is as good as it could be (except maybe Heaven ); only a NIMBY thinks most change means things getting worse.

I think the immediate ban on single-story buildings is unfair. They are quite prolific in Central, and I don't think the neighborhood would successful survive such upheaval. Plus, the "divey-ness" of some of these properties are part of the successful grittyness and edginess that allows for a thriving, non-homogenous scene.

You can put a dive in any building.

The P.O. is too small for a mall. Would make a nicer public library, though, than the concrete box buried back on Green St. & Pearl.

There's an even smaller mall on Winthrop Square. Used to even have a cinema.

There are no easy alternate routes and River/Western is a major thoroughfare eventually connecting to the River Drives and the Mass Pike. Already the prevention of left turns in this intersection creates extra traffic on minor roads. I think the placement of the Harvard T headhouse in the middle of the Harvard Square intersection was a bad idea there, too.

Harvard Square survived its through-traffic disruption quite nicely. Traffic is like water; it finds its own way.

And why is your publicly supported movie house competing with the privately run Brattle and HFA in Harvard (and the Somerville theater in Davis, and the Coolidge in Coolidge Corner, and the Kendall cinemas in Kendall ... yes there is good support for film in Boston, but not THAT much)?

Oh well, guess it'll just go out of business again.

spend the big bucks and grand changes in the no-man's land along Main St. and in towards Kendall Square

OK, let's do that next. Btw, most of my proposals don't cost the taxpayer much --hardly big bucks.

an infill T station at Main and Portland and including a complete recaptiulation of the public housing north of Main St. Even with expanded southern entrances to the Central T, it is still too far from MIT. A new T station here could connect to a transit line on the Grand Junction right of way ...

Good idea. Add an infill station further up Mass Ave at Dana Street for the same reason, and another at Sacramento Street toward Porter Square.

 

[ckb]

And something tells you I want to get rid of all that? Hey, I like Central Square --that's why I picked it-- I used to live near it. But no place is as good as it could be (except maybe Heaven ); only a NIMBY thinks most change means things getting worse.

You can put a dive in any building.

No you can't. A newer building commands higher rents, which operators of a dive can't afford. Its a similar response to the other thread about Class A office space. No one sets out to builds Class C office space ... are we drugging developers now, too?

Overall, my concern ... doing too good of a job at making a place desireable. Harvard Square is a shadow of its former self, and it would be even worse (Bank/Bank/Drugstore/Bank) if Harvard University didn't control much of the property.

"No one goes there anymore, its too crowded" - Yogi Berra

Harvard Square survived its through-traffic disruption quite nicely. Traffic is like water; it finds its own way.

The traffic just north of Harvard is a disaster. It prevents the best use of the Cambridge Common. Plus Cambridge St. and Broadway are natural options for the traffic to find its own way to flow.

The street grids near River St. and Western Ave. are comparatively tiny.

Good idea. Add an infill station further up Mass Ave at Dana Street for the same reason, and another at Sacramento Street toward Porter Square.

There's much less raw development/improvement potential at Dana Street, and moderately less at Sacramento St., but I agree that such changes would make overall improvements to Cambridge's urban condition.

 

[ablarc]

Ablarc, I think that your concept ... lacks inspiration.

ablarc, its great that you're thinking big and bold, but I wonder if you appreciate what already exists in Central Square, and what would be threatened by implementing all of what you propose.

Simultaneously uninspired and too bold.

Oh, well. :sigh:

And anyway, there's always a worthier project to tackle first. My personal favorite is peace on earth, goodwill towards men, combined with an end to poverty.

This one might do as a stop-gap, though:

if I had the city officials drinking Kool-Aid, I would make smaller tweaks in Central and Harvard, and spend the big bucks and grand changes in the no-man's land along Main St. and in towards Kendall Sqaure (no it is not too late to effect many of the same changes you suggest in Central in the Kendall area)...

And anyway, there are hazards in all undertakings:

Overall, my concern ... doing too good of a job at making a place desireable. Harvard Square is a shadow of its former self...
"No one goes there anymore, its too crowded" - Yogi Berra

Some folks can see all the hazards.


* * *

Freshman year in college I played a lot of poker.

I played by the book and broke even, but I noticed some folks consistently lost, while street-smart Pete seemed to have a golden touch with the cards. He never got up from the table without more than he'd come with.

Pete was never caught bluffing. When he was called, he always had the cards to win. When the table folded, he never divulged his hand.

Finally I swallowed my pride and acknowledged his mastery: "What's your secret, Pete?"

"It's not the cards," he replied, "in the long run everyone has exactly the same amount of luck. The edge is in knowing when to take a chance. If you never take a chance you'll break even, but who wants to play to break even? Some people always lose; they take stupid risks that don't pan out. I take all the chances that do. You can tell in advance which ones will --if you know how to play the game. That's why I never get caught bluffing; I know which risks I can safely get away with."

That way you always win.

 

[ablarc]

Harvard Square is a shadow of its former self, and it would be even worse (Bank/Bank/Drugstore/Bank) if Harvard University didn't control much of the property.

An interesting thesis; tell it to Harry Mattison.

 

[mdd]

i loved this thread

 

[Lurker]

My only complaint about Central Square is the recent increase in aggressive panhandling hobos and the dimness of the street lighting. The lighting adds to the atmosphere of the local nightlife, but it is rather dim on a moonless night when one is trying to not break a leg on black ice.

 

[czsz]

What do you mean by aggressive panhandling?

 

[Lurker]

The last few times I've been through Central Square there have been beggars every 2-3 storefronts. Many of whom block one's path and share rather hearty language when their cups are ignored. Perhaps they approach because of my attire, but I've noticed many other pedestrians on the street seemed annoyed as well. The worst stretch is two blocks prior Pearl Art Supplies to the YMCA past City Hall.

 

[blade_bltz]

Mmm...so all that dimness and black ice...guess Central Square just isn't white *COUGH* I mean light enough.

 

[FrankG]

I live in Central and usually just ignore the beggars without any problems. I think I would be upset if they started heckling me. But I can't really complain if I'm the one with a stable roof over my head.

A lot of homeless folks usually have signs saying that they're veterans handicapped from war. Yesterday I saw one in Harvard Square saying that he told his parents he was gay, and they threw him out of the house. I wondered if he had in mind what would draw more sympathy from folks in a town like Cambridge?