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

What I would like to see for this site more than anything is an extension of Broad Canal up past the Watermark buildings and into a lagoon constructed on the eastern half of this site. Please forgive my comical inability to draw, but you get the general idea from my picture below. Imagine open areas as well, some paths, the odd statue here or there, a paddle boat rental, connection to the Charles River for canoes and kayaks, etc.

Kendall Square lacks a focal point, and I think here is a perfect opportunity to provide one. It would do wonders for the location, and probably for property values as well, and make Kendall a desirable place to work and live. I think the filling of all Boston's interior waterways is one of the saddest things that's happened in its developmental history, but unlike the razing of historical buildings it's not irreversible.

Then by all means build big on the other half of the site.

0B7si7aM3IAqUbWtCbjZSVU5PUzQ
 
Poolio said:
What I would like to see for this site more than anything is an extension of Broad Canal up past the Watermark buildings and into a lagoon constructed on the eastern half of this site. Please forgive my comical inability to draw, but you get the general idea from my picture below. Imagine open areas as well, some paths, the odd statue here or there, a paddle boat rental, connection to the Charles River for canoes and kayaks, etc.

Kendall Square lacks a focal point, and I think here is a perfect opportunity to provide one. It would do wonders for the location, and probably for property values as well, and make Kendall a desirable place to work and live. I think the filling of all Boston's interior waterways is one of the saddest things that's happened in its developmental history, but unlike the razing of historical buildings it's not irreversible.

Then by all means build big on the other half of the site.

0B7si7aM3IAqUbWtCbjZSVU5PUzQ
Click to expand...

I like it, but it takes up a lot of valuable real estate. Maybe just the canal extension...
 
tangent said:
I also like it. As long it is at the foot of a 1000' tall skyscraper.
Click to expand...

I would like to see a tall building but 1000' tall in Cambridge would just look downright ridiculous like Oklahoma city. Plus I can not see the demand for that especially with the nature of companies Cambridge attracts. Bio and tech companies at not looking to be in 1000' tall tower.

I would love to see the canal extended though down to Volpe with retail lining both sides and buildings ranging from 100' to 500'. I am more worried about how the ground level interacts and brings kendal together into a more 24/7 place and a vibrant neighborhood than the height.

Extending the canal could make this development really unique and a true gem. Something I would love to see happen but highly doubt it.
 
JG573, I think I see what you're saying... instead of a park/lagoon, extend the canal straight down the center of the site? Pedestrian roads on either side, a couple footbridges, lots of retail and open-air restaurants? I like that idea a lot.

Fattony, maybe with the lagoon idea, it could still work at half the size. Take up the space currently occupied by the parking lot and adjacent lawn.

Of course I like the notion of a tall building here as well. Maybe something more in the 500 to 600 foot range (1000 seems like a bit much). Building tall would help free up land for open space. I would really love to see water integrated into the site.
 
The cambridgeside galleria / lechmere canal offer a great template for this. The canal's 'lollipop' head is a very nicely done urban space.

I think something like that - hardscaping, seawalls, a close 'streetwall' defining a water-centric space could be great - and a lot more appropriate for the heart of the district than than the 'postage stamp pastoral' suggested by your rendering/map....
 
If one goes to the city's assessing map, extending the Broad Canal to the Volpe site would represent a taking of One Broadway, which is assessed for $93 million. So beyond the cost of construction (and who is to pay for that?), who is to pay for One Broadway?
 
JG573 said:
I would like to see a tall building but 1000' tall in Cambridge would just look downright ridiculous like Oklahoma city. Plus I can not see the demand for that especially with the nature of companies Cambridge attracts. Bio and tech companies at not looking to be in 1000' tall tower.

I would love to see the canal extended though down to Volpe with retail lining both sides and buildings ranging from 100' to 500'. I am more worried about how the ground level interacts and brings kendal together into a more 24/7 place and a vibrant neighborhood than the height.

Extending the canal could make this development really unique and a true gem. Something I would love to see happen but highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

An 800 to 1000' would rise up like Hancock and Prudential do/did compared to their surrounding buildings. And with the FAA already saying a tall building could go here, it is a waste to go half as tall.

Lab space can't go tall for logistical reasons, but no reason engineering can't enjoy a view like the lawyers and Accountants do downtown.

I think the only way you justify the expense to extend the canal is to turn it into a $3 Billion development.
 
Poolio said:
What I would like to see for this site more than anything is an extension of Broad Canal up past the Watermark buildings and into a lagoon constructed on the eastern half of this site. Please forgive my comical inability to draw, but you get the general idea from my picture below. Imagine open areas as well, some paths, the odd statue here or there, a paddle boat rental, connection to the Charles River for canoes and kayaks, etc.

Kendall Square lacks a focal point, and I think here is a perfect opportunity to provide one. It would do wonders for the location, and probably for property values as well, and make Kendall a desirable place to work and live. I think the filling of all Boston's interior waterways is one of the saddest things that's happened in its developmental history, but unlike the razing of historical buildings it's not irreversible.

Then by all means build big on the other half of the site.

0B7si7aM3IAqUbWtCbjZSVU5PUzQ
Click to expand...

Poolio -- nice effort -- but about 30 years too late -- MIT's wishes have to be considered -- as Cambridge 2nd largest tax payer - As noted in a posting above

MIT would not be in favor of digging a hole and filling it with water right behing the Institute -- after all there's a large lagoon just in front of MIT
 
tangent said:
An 800 to 1000' would rise up like Hancock and Prudential do/did compared to their surrounding buildings. And with the FAA already saying a tall building could go here, it is a waste to go half as tall.

Lab space can't go tall for logistical reasons, but no reason engineering can't enjoy a view like the lawyers and Accountants do downtown.

I think the only way you justify the expense to extend the canal is to turn it into a $3 Billion development.
Click to expand...

Tangent -- as noted in a recent posting -- from a B&T [paid] article titled "Boston's Dirty Secret" about the lack of interest in paying for premium office views -- the only kinds of tall towers being built now are residences -- there are also no new plans for a really tall [even by Boston standards] office tower [not already in the pipeline]

So then you need to ask -- would Kendall / Cambridge economics support a 1000 foot residential tower -- or possibly a hotel and residential tower with a lower block of offices and a retail podium
 
stellarfun said:
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?
Click to expand...

Stellarfun -- thanks for clarifying a few things

Reading the RFI -- the public document is not an RFP -- one sees an option which would please Volpe -- although not necessarily the Cambridge community

The New Facility will be a single facility or connected facilities that contain up to 390,000 gross
square feet (GSF) and parking spaces as appropriate to house up to 1,300 personnel.
Click to expand...


Exchange for Renovation of Existing Building(s) on the Property
Under this approach, the Government would exchange portions of the Property for the design and renovation of certain existing building(s) located on the Property in combination with a cash payment to equalize value if necessary.
 In exchange for the design and renovation of an existing building or buildings on the
Property, which would serve as the New Facility, the Government would offer title to the
Exchange Parcel(s);
 The Government would evaluate offers and execute the exchange agreement;
 The selected offeror would provide design and renovation services; and
 GSA would convey the Exchange Parcel(s) to the selected offeror on a mutually agreed
upon date following completion of the New Facility.
Click to expand...

The result if this option is selected would be the block of a tower would stay but be updated in function and perhaps exterior look

The rest of the desired functions
 Office operations including conference rooms and space for collaborative, joint-use activities,
and special use space (i.e., fitness center, child care facility) (approximately 90%);
 Flexible, ground-level laboratory space to accommodate simulators and large vehicles and
storage space (approximately 10%); and
 Public access to showcase the work of the Volpe Center.
Click to expand...

would be consolidated into a new structure located on the footprint of the existing auditorium building and adjacent parking lot at the corner of 3rd and Broadway

This would leave the rest of the site located to the west and north for development

The best solution might be to reconnect the existing street grid [beyond the current Volpe boundaries]
 
whighlander said:
Tangent -- as noted in a recent posting -- from a B&T [paid] article titled "Boston's Dirty Secret" about the lack of interest in paying for premium office views -- the only kinds of tall towers being built now are residences -- there are also no new plans for a really tall [even by Boston standards] office tower [not already in the pipeline]

So then you need to ask -- would Kendall / Cambridge economics support a 1000 foot residential tower -- or possibly a hotel and residential tower with a lower block of offices and a retail podium
Click to expand...

Let me ask, is it more expensive, less expensive or the same per square foot to build at 500 feet versus 800 feet? If the same (or less) then the economic argument is for building taller to maximize the economic potential of the site and create a higher quality result
 
Tangent,

An economic consultant did a 'quick and dirty' study of redevelopment of the Volpe site for the Cambridge Planning Board The consultant assumed 38 percent of the building GSF area would be residential. That percentage resulted in an assessment that redevelopment would be a low reward undertaking.

The consultant's assumptions:

Estimated land value by use per GSF
Residential $58
Retail $68
Innovation $129
Office $155
Laboratory $199

Construction costs (hard and soft costs) per GSF
Retail $330
Office $358
Innovation $358
Residential $407
Lab $413
Parking $100,000 a space

One doesn't need to be a MIT rocket scientist to see what a developer is going to try and do: minimize as best one can the spending (and square footage) on residential, and maximize the spending (and square footage) on lab and office.
 
stellarfun said:
Tangent,

An economic consultant did a 'quick and dirty' study of redevelopment of the Volpe site for the Cambridge Planning Board The consultant assumed 38 percent of the building GSF area would be residential. That percentage resulted in an assessment that redevelopment would be a low reward undertaking.

The consultant's assumptions:

Estimated land value by use per GSF
Residential $58
Retail $68
Innovation $129
Office $155
Laboratory $199

Construction costs (hard and soft costs) per GSF
Retail $330
Office $358
Innovation $358
Residential $407
Lab $413
Parking $100,000 a space

One doesn't need to be a MIT rocket scientist to see what a developer is going to try and do: minimize as best one can the spending (and square footage) on residential, and maximize the spending (and square footage) on lab and office.
Click to expand...

Do you mind linking a source? I'd be curious to read the report if you're able to share it (please).

Thanks.
 
stellarfun said:
Tangent,

An economic consultant did a 'quick and dirty' study of redevelopment of the Volpe site for the Cambridge Planning Board The consultant assumed 38 percent of the building GSF area would be residential. That percentage resulted in an assessment that redevelopment would be a low reward undertaking.

The consultant's assumptions:

Estimated land value by use per GSF
Residential $58
Retail $68
Innovation $129
Office $155
Laboratory $199

Construction costs (hard and soft costs) per GSF
Retail $330
Office $358
Innovation $358
Residential $407
Lab $413
Parking $100,000 a space

One doesn't need to be a MIT rocket scientist to see what a developer is going to try and do: minimize as best one can the spending (and square footage) on residential, and maximize the spending (and square footage) on lab and office.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I was curious about the economics of building tall. Assuming you can fill the office space, have access to capital, then does the math make sense to go as tall as possible?
 
dshoost, (its about five slides)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2515497-hr-amp-a-economic-analysis-17-nov-2015.html
__________________________

The RFQ contained the following provisions as to what type of replacement building GSA was seeking:

● Building Envelope Design – The building envelope shall be designed to optimize performance as it relates to energy, day-lighting, security, and extreme weather events.

● Building Typology and Architecture – The facility shall reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor and stability of the Federal Government, emphasizing designs that embody the finest contemporary architectural innovations.

● Climate Adaptation and Resiliency – The design team shall address the risks of rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Consider principles of resiliency, energy and water surety, and future changes to climate in the design of the site and buildings that, in the event of extreme weather conditions and/or other extreme events, will result in minimizing disruption to the mission and the safety of its occupants.

● Comfort, Safety and Health – The Respondent shall provide a clean, healthy workplace environment, free of harmful contaminants and excessive noise, with access to quality air, light, and water. Provide a workplace that allows occupants to adjust lighting, acoustic, and furnishing systems to meet personal and group comfort levels.

● Energy and Resources – The design shall minimize the impact on the environment during construction and for the life of the building. Consider operational requirements and reduction of carbon footprint, and incorporate principles of sustainability, net-zero energy, and life cycle costing. The design and construction team should incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) strategies and strive to achieve a net zero building design. (Note that the project is required to achieve a minimum of LEED® Gold.)

● Flexibility – The workplace layout and the technology infrastructure should embrace planning concepts that will allow for flexible floor arrangements. Flexible design, including building systems, shall also allow the rest of the facility to function while spaces are being reconfigured.

● Good Neighbor Policy and Urban Design – The design shall consider the neighborhood scale and context, the citywide planning initiatives of the City of Cambridge, and the promotion of public space. The design shall utilize the site characteristics, minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and utilize landscape to unify the program, address site security, and the facility’s integration in the community.

● Locally Sourced Materials and Services – The team is to consider use of locally manufactured and sourced materials and the use of local trades and services.

● Procurement – The team is to consider utilization of small and minority owned businesses and disadvantaged veteran owned businesses.

● Workplace Environment – The design team is to create a state of the art workplace environment that supports the mission of the Volpe Center through the implementation of best practices, resulting in workspaces that promote agility, flexibility, collaboration, communications, well-being, and productivity.
Click to expand...

_________________
The RFP (not released to the public) contains:

Those Respondents invited to participate in the Phase II RFP will be provided with the following information (subject to change) in the RFP:
1) Model Exchange Agreement
2) Site Information (ALTA Survey, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, etc.)
3) Performance-based specifications and technical requirements for the New Facility
4) Volpe Center Program of Requirements
5) Detailed Phase II Evaluation Criteria
6) Administrative and contractual requirements, including Terms and Conditions
Click to expand...

The city's Planning Board and economic consultant voiced concern about what might be revealed by the Environmental Site Assessment. I think its fair to say that GSA will seek to limit its responsibility for cleaning up the site, as would otherwise be required by the 1980 CERCLA (Superfund) law.

Possible ways for minimizing cleanup cost would include putting the new Volpe building on the most contaminated portion of the site, as government retains title to the land. For the non-government portion of the site, maximize the placing of open space where there are other highly contaminated areas, and if one has to excavate, dig where contamination is less. If environmental remediation costs are high, that may dictate either more gsf of building being allowed, and/or a shift to more space being allocated for 'high-rent' uses, i.e., labs.
 
tangent said:
Sure, but I was curious about the economics of building tall. Assuming you can fill the office space, have access to capital, then does the math make sense to go as tall as possible?
Click to expand...

There are other factors: what are the additional foundation costs? how much lease-able floorplate do you lose because of code and building infrastructure the taller one goes?

Charleston-South_Exterior_Softgrid.0.jpg


Foster-and-Partners-Apple-Headquarters-1.jpg


Do you see 'tall' in the designs for Google's and Apple's new HQ?

The more one is wed to tall as an office building these days, the more inflexible the workplace becomes because of the small floorplate. Particularly for companies that place a premium on collaboration. (Having to take an elevator to get to an office that's 50 (vertical feet) away is not conducive to collaboration.)
 
stellarfun said:
The more one is wed to tall as an office building these days, the more inflexible the workplace becomes because of the small floorplate. Particularly for companies that place a premium on collaboration. (Having to take an elevator to get to an office that's 50 (vertical feet) away is not conducive to collaboration.)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the open floor plan trend will last forever. The huge productivity leaps we were supposed to see are not materializing; a lot of workers do their best creative work with a bit of privacy/quiet time...interspersed with collaborative teamwork.

A few perspectives on this (yes I understand these are not official scientific studies):
http://www.fastcompany.com/3019758/...are-bad-for-employees-bosses-and-productivity

http://www.brendaton.com/search-mar...ployee-productivity-satisfaction#.V2ftHYSqyi4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top