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

Wow, only Cambridge would be dumb enough to go tall with 50's style towers in a park. Kendall square deserves better.
 
curcuas said:
Wow, only Cambridge would be dumb enough to go tall with 50's style towers in a park. Kendall square deserves better.
Click to expand...

Nothing has been revealed yet, everything that we've been talking about is basically speculation.
 
For the love of everything I don't know why anybody actually WANTS a 1,000 foot tower, architecturally and design speaking. It would look hideous and incredibly out of place. If you're going to get more height in Cambridge, it has to be gradual.

When you put a single 1,000 foot building in a mess of 300 footers, it just looks like Cambridge is trying to erect itself a giant edificial penis.
 
tangent said:
Better to put the tall on the North side of the parcel to reduce shadows on the center. Nice to see some massing though.
Click to expand...

The far southeastern edge of the site is the only area that has a 1000' limit according to 'THE FAA MAP' though. The limit could plausibly be negotiated with to spread it around the site, but i doubt it would be worth it for such a potentially controversial project.
 
whighlander, from Town-Gown, for Cambridge only
Undergraduates in Institute-approved housing 3543 (3500-3600 in 10 years)
Undergraduates in off-campus housing owned and managed by MIT 0
Undergraduates in off-campus, non-MIT housing 77

Graduates in Institute-approved housing 2384 (2800-3000 in 10 years)
Graduates in off-campus housing owned and managed by MIT 44
Graduates in off-campus, non-MIT housing 1876

My point about non-profits not building non-university residential applied only to residential housing. What did Harvard do in Barry's Corner? It sold off (swapped) large tracts of land to 'private' developers to build residential, rentals and condos. Did it part with the commercial properties along Western Ave. for which it receives rent?
________________________________
MIT was not selected because its proposal envisioned a 1,000 foot tower, or even a 500' tower. MIT is into this parcel for north of $300 million, before it even puts up a building of its own. Assuming it gets seven buildable acres when all is said and done, that's over $40 million an acre in sunk costs. Affordable housing becomes unaffordable, and MIT is not housing graduates and post docs on land that costs that much.
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
whighlander, from Town-Gown, for Cambridge only
Undergraduates in Institute-approved housing 3543 (3500-3600 in 10 years)
Undergraduates in off-campus housing owned and managed by MIT 0
Undergraduates in off-campus, non-MIT housing 77

Graduates in Institute-approved housing 2384 (2800-3000 in 10 years)
Graduates in off-campus housing owned and managed by MIT 44
Graduates in off-campus, non-MIT housing 1876

My point about non-profits not building non-university residential applied only to residential housing. What did Harvard do in Barry's Corner? It sold off (swapped) large tracts of land to 'private' developers to build residential, rentals and condos. Did it part with the commercial properties along Western Ave. for which it receives rent?
________________________________
MIT was not selected because its proposal envisioned a 1,000 foot tower, or even a 500' tower. MIT is into this parcel for north of $300 million, before it even puts up a building of its own. Assuming it gets seven buildable acres when all is said and done, that's over $40 million an acre in sunk costs. Affordable housing becomes unaffordable, and MIT is not housing graduates and post docs on land that costs that much.
Click to expand...

Stellarfun -- unless you are party to information -- not available to the rest of us -- Nothing has been mentioned about $ or terms

MIT was chosen because of the MITIMCO statement for the local real estate portfolio
we manage a portfolio of real estate in Cambridge around the MIT campus. Because MIT owns a critical mass of land holdings in Cambridge and is a large driver of demand for real estate space, we have advantages in this arena that third parties cannot match. In this particular circumstance, it also is important for MIT to take direct control of these investments because our goal is not simply to seek the highest financial returns with the properties.

While it is important for a real estate project to be financially viable for it to be sustainable, we also want to attract innovative companies to the Cambridge area and to create a lively interactive environment that benefits local residents, local businesses and the MIT community.
Click to expand...

Lincoln Laboratory Program Funding,
by Mission Area (in Millions),*
Fiscal Year 2015
Total: $937


Lincoln Lab
linc-mission-areas-FY2015.png
Click to expand...

Research Expenditures,
by Primary Sponsor (in Millions)*
Fiscal Year 2015
Total: $696.89
MIT on Campus
research-FY2015.png
Click to expand...
 
whighlander, you don't need to be a MIT graduate to price 400,000 sq ft of a new Federal building, part lab, and with substantial security features. The new FBI Headquarters building is 2.1 million sq ft, and cost estimate is $2.5 billion. (And that's not including several hundred million of infrastructure.) And the new FBI site is unlikely to need costly remediation.

The city of Cambridge's economic consultant's analysis of a development of the Volpe site indicated, because of the sunk costs, development would be no windfall bonanza. The analysis was actually quite pessimistic. (Perhaps you forgot that discussion, up thread.)
http://www.cambridgeday.com/2015/11...casts-doubt-on-if-math-works-out-for-builder/
 
No update, but I am an E.Cambridge resident and sent a detailed email to the Volpe Working Group about how part of this parcel needs to reach 400'-450', face across the river, and be iconic.

I sent a picture of the Shard, introduced the idea of mix-used space (roof deck, high floor dining & bar, lecture halls, open work space, office space & retail) and pounded the fact that with views, beauty and uniqueness (as a symbol of Kendall & innovation) this would be an easy sell and the best decision they've ever made.

What are your thoughts?
Night-View-Of-The-Shard-In-London.jpg
 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
I sent a picture of the Shard, introduced the idea of mix-used space (roof deck, high floor dining & bar, lecture halls, open work space, office space & retail) and pounded the fact that with views, beauty and uniqueness (as a symbol of Kendall & innovation) this would be an easy sell and the best decision they've ever made.
Click to expand...

I want to make fun of the Shard suggestion, but an MIT version of the Cathedral of Learning at 400' or so could be pretty cool.
 
Equilibria said:
I want to make fun of the Shard suggestion, but an MIT version of the Cathedral of Learning at 400' or so could be pretty cool.
Click to expand...

Suggested Shard to them because it's will most likely be something abstract (citing all of the new renders MIT released for buildings on Main and Third).

I see the Shard in an Eiffel Tower-esque shape to reduce shadow complaints, add uniqueness and stare at Boston in a Sauron-like "We're watching you." :rolleyes:
 
I agree that the shard would be cool. However I'd rather have the tower be around 800 feet versus the 400 that you proposed.
 
I have a gut feeling that once this and the big complex by Boston Properties are done, we will see one more "mega" (at least by Cambridge standards) proposal in Kendall, at the site of the Constellation Center "art" sculptures. I walked by both sites last night and it seems more and more obvious that the developer is holding out on some primo real estate.
 
Eventually, when the Constellation Center actually fails (or doesn't?), we'll see a development there, but I doubt it will be anything other than two buildings as currently proposed: a residential high-rise building, and some non-commercial building (the Constellation Center (lol) or a lab/office building).

One unrelated question, while this thread is bumped - why does DoT NEED a new building, anyway? What is wrong with renovating the current one and the developers building around it?
 
Gameguy326 said:
One unrelated question, while this thread is bumped - why does DoT NEED a new building, anyway? What is wrong with renovating the current one and the developers building around it?
Click to expand...

They want to move directly into their new building and don't want to rent office space during the renovation. And there is some equipment they couldn't move to a rented space.

And the current building is in a pretty shitty spot for building around it
 
I wonder how much money it would take to relocate the natural gas compressor station on Third St. It strikes me as rather incompatible with a performance space like the Constellation Center.
 
It's more than time for ConCen to be put aside in favor of someone who can get something done. A decade+ of supposed fundraising and...nothing. It's the same with all the non-profits given parcels on the RK greenway, they have all flopped with nothing whatsoever to show after many, many years.
 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
No update, but I am an E.Cambridge resident and sent a detailed email to the Volpe Working Group about how part of this parcel needs to reach 400'-450', face across the river, and be iconic.

I sent a picture of the Shard, introduced the idea of mix-used space.....

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

sigh....
 
Reading between the lines, I think the constellation center guy is a total shyster. He's using a "charity" as excuse to tour europe and go to concerts and other art performances and paying no taxes on highly valuable land. When he's forced to sell, he'll make a fortune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top