Kendall Common ( née Volpe Redevelopment) | Kendall Sq | Cambridge

All of the Volpe replacement requirements, aside from the Kendall proximity, scream for it to be located on a portion of the Hanscom property.
 
Equilibria said:
I believe that the GSA already specified that the replacement building must be on the current site. I also believe that MIT has programmed those buildings, most of them for academic or residential use.
Click to expand...

Equilibria -- we don't know what is in the RFP as the story says the GSA wont reveal it citing some governmental prerogatives

As to the MIT buildings -- the SoMA and NoMA are specifically not academic buildings although you can argue that there might be some overlaps with maker spaces and the MIT Museum and such

Yes some of the buildings are devoted to graduate student and young faculty / staff housing

But I think that there is sufficient flexibility in both the MIT plans and the Volpe site to accommodate both MIT's and the Volpe's needs

If I have one concern its that with all the extra green space planned for the MIT Kendall and the desire of some activists to make Volpe in to a big park -- that the opportunity of a lifetime to redo Kendall / Volpe will be missed
 
RandomWalk said:
All of the Volpe replacement requirements, aside from the Kendall proximity, scream for it to be located on a portion of the Hanscom property.
Click to expand...

Random -- but you just said it -- except for the Kendall Proximity -- that is a huge except these days
 
whighlander said:
Equilibria -- we don't know what is in the RFP as the story says the GSA wont reveal it citing some governmental prerogatives

As to the MIT buildings -- the SoMA and NoMA are specifically not academic buildings although you can argue that there might be some overlaps with maker spaces and the MIT Museum and such

Yes some of the buildings are devoted to graduate student and young faculty / staff housing

But I think that there is sufficient flexibility in both the MIT plans and the Volpe site to accommodate both MIT's and the Volpe's needs

If I have one concern its that with all the extra green space planned for the MIT Kendall and the desire of some activists to make Volpe in to a big park -- that the opportunity of a lifetime to redo Kendall / Volpe will be missed
Click to expand...

It was well-reported by CambridgeDay and others. Now, that only accounts for Volpe wanting to stay in Kendall - it's possible that elsewhere in the immediate area would be acceptable. MIT, however, has no motive to turn over sites immediately adjacent to campus to a non-MIT use, and has no institutional incentive to reap a return the Volpe site quickly. They could afford to wait.
 
Equilibria said:
It was well-reported by CambridgeDay and others. Now, that only accounts for Volpe wanting to stay in Kendall - it's possible that elsewhere in the immediate area would be acceptable. MIT, however, has no motive to turn over sites immediately adjacent to campus to a non-MIT use, and has no institutional incentive to reap a return the Volpe site quickly. They could afford to wait.
Click to expand...

Equilibria -- take a look at the MIT plan for Kendall -- its several hundreds of MB in total in the pdfs -- But the entire point is that most of the development is for non-strictly MIT uses

Nearly everything in the Kendall area has an MIT finger on it, or an MIT spoon stiring the pot and Volpe is no exception

MIT is seeking to control more of its backdoor and the Volpe site would be perfect
 
After further thought, I'll guess the possible reason for the secrecy is that MIT has offered up a site for existing Volpe, possibly along Vassar near Cambridgeport. And that the GSA has asked the finalists to propose as an alternative what they would do with the existing Volpe site, with MIT as a partner. Thus, an alternative with MIT as a partner, and a proposal without.

With MIT as a partner, you would pick up another 400,000 feet (allocated to Volpe).

MIT has no interest in being a residential landlord, and both MIT and a partner would want to secure a long-term income stream from businesses willing to pay premium prices, e.g., $80+ a square foot. The revenue stream from business will offset the lower stream from residences (including affordable housing).

With Volpe gone elsewhere, you'd get perhaps 400,000 sq ft of developable land area (after deducting for open space), Assuming you're allowed a max of 2 million gsf, of building, there is little benefit to going tall, unless you have a tenant who is willing, for ego purposes, to lease a very big chunk of space in a tall.

As a developer, you'd would want to offer space that appeals to a variety of business tenants and meets their varying needs.

For reference, Chiofaro's tower(s) were about 1.3 million gsf on 53,000 sq ft.
 
stellarfun said:
After further thought, I'll guess the possible reason for the secrecy is that MIT has offered up a site for existing Volpe, possibly along Vassar near Cambridgeport. And that the GSA has asked the finalists to propose as an alternative what they would do with the existing Volpe site, with MIT as a partner. Thus, an alternative with MIT as a partner, and a proposal without.

With MIT as a partner, you would pick up another 400,000 feet (allocated to Volpe).

MIT has no interest in being a residential landlord, and both MIT and a partner would want to secure a long-term income stream from businesses willing to pay premium prices, e.g., $80+ a square foot. The revenue stream from business will offset the lower stream from residences (including affordable housing).

With Volpe gone elsewhere, you'd get perhaps 400,000 sq ft of developable land area (after deducting for open space), Assuming you're allowed a max of 2 million gsf, of building, there is little benefit to going tall, unless you have a tenant who is willing, for ego purposes, to lease a very big chunk of space in a tall.

As a developer, you'd would want to offer space that appeals to a variety of business tenants and meets their varying needs.

For reference, Chiofaro's tower(s) were about 1.3 million gsf on 53,000 sq ft.
Click to expand...

If MIT is a partner/owner, what would be the property tax implications?
 
HalcyonEra said:
If MIT is a partner/owner, what would be the property tax implications?
Click to expand...

Not unless they use a portion for educational purposes. The property tax exemption is for educational use. If it is used for commercial/residential then it should still be taxed.

Only if they pulled something like the GE deal with having the government still own the land and the buildings could they avoid taxes.
 
tangent said:
Not unless they use a portion for educational purposes. The property tax exemption is for educational use. If it is used for commercial/residential then it should still be taxed.

Only if they pulled something like the GE deal with having the government still own the land and the buildings could they avoid taxes.
Click to expand...

So if the property was to be considered one parcel, and they set aside 20% for educational uses would the other 80% be taxable or is it all or nothing?
 
HalcyonEra said:
If MIT is a partner/owner, what would be the property tax implications?
Click to expand...

tangent said:
Not unless they use a portion for educational purposes. The property tax exemption is for educational use. If it is used for commercial/residential then it should still be taxed.

Only if they pulled something like the GE deal with having the government still own the land and the buildings could they avoid taxes.
Click to expand...


From a recent MIT PR fact sheet:

"The Institute is Cambridge’s second largest employer and largest taxpayer, representing 13 percent of the city’s revenue stream. MIT pays taxes on its commercial property and provides an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for property that is used for academic purposes and is legally tax exempt. In fiscal year 2015, the Institute made a voluntary PILOT contribution of approximately $2 million to the City of Cambridge and paid approximately $45 million in real estate taxes."
 
fattony said:
From a recent MIT PR fact sheet:

"The Institute is Cambridge’s second largest employer and largest taxpayer, representing 13 percent of the city’s revenue stream. MIT pays taxes on its commercial property and provides an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for property that is used for academic purposes and is legally tax exempt. In fiscal year 2015, the Institute made a voluntary PILOT contribution of approximately $2 million to the City of Cambridge and paid approximately $45 million in real estate taxes."
Click to expand...

Perfect. Thank you.
 
whighlander said:
If I have one concern its that with all the extra green space planned for the MIT Kendall and the desire of some activists to make Volpe in to a big park -- that the opportunity of a lifetime to redo Kendall / Volpe will be missed
Click to expand...
A Legitimate Concern. Unfortunately myopic greenies just don't know when to stop. This will be a collection of towers in a park (more likely low/mid rises in a park).
 
There is information on Banker & Tradesman -- paid only -- which seems to indicate that while the GSA RFP is not a public document that the GSA wants:
  • the new Volpe to stay on the property with the Fed's retaining title to the land under the new Volpe
  • the new volpe has to be working before anything else can be done
  • final decision as to the developer is supposed to be at the end of the year

There is also a clarification as to the size of the existing complex -- 6 buildings totaling 375k gross square feet spread out over 14 acres

for comparison the entire Pru Complex covers 23 acres
 
They gotta go to 1000'. This is the spot and what better way for Cambridge to separate itself than Boston by building the tallest, by far. I would love to see this. Sometimes I don't want to see buildings absolutely soar over skyline, like downtown Boston, but here theres not much of a skyline and the domination would be breathtaking. It would be really cool to be able to see the city from soo much further away if this went the distance.
 
Definitely. Boston cant really do it right now but we have a second city right across the river that could give us what everybody's been waiting for.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Federal Gov't is exempt from local zoning laws so they could technically build a 1,000 foot tower here even if Cambridge doesn't approve the height and they could be a tenant in the lower levels with residences above right?
 
tysmith95 said:
1000 ft allows for the developer to put more green space on the rest of the development and still make money. Kendall deserves a skyscraper.
Click to expand...

100% agree, but what about preserving the historic architectural character of the blocks surrounding the Volpe site???:

 
whighlander, that B&T info was in the RFI solicitation.

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/196435/fileName/Volpe_Center_-_Request_for_Information.action

Note that the RFI allows for a new building "proximate" to the existing site.

The RFQ can be found here.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=c54a8b7e0430d05e107c1e0f14f85788

The mystery is why the RFP is not public.
________________________________________

Citylover, if the government were to build a 1,000 foot tower, it would own the tower, and zoning would not apply. However, the government has zero interest in owning a 1,000 foot tower, or a mixed use building, or a residential use building whole, or in part.

If the new Volpe Center stays on the current site, the government would continue to own that portion of the site and the new building. In theory, it would not be subject to zoning. However, the government likely is not thinking tall, but rather short and squat. If you build on a 80,000 sq ft footprint, how many floors to get to a building with 400,000 gsf?
 
If Trump becomes president we'll get a big tall tower built with Mexican slave labor!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top