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

Equilibria said:
Is there just a David Manfredi signal that people shine in the sky when they need a safe, respectable-sounding architect in Boston?

500+ is promising, though. Hope they release the site plan online today.
Click to expand...

Yep, excited by the mix and description.

Love to see some plans so we can discuss architecture.
 
Equilibria said:
Is there just a David Manfredi signal that people shine in the sky when they need a safe, respectable-sounding architect in Boston?

500+ is promising, though. Hope they release the site plan online today.
Click to expand...

So SOM is only doing the federal building, and Manfredi is doing the rest? (Was it previously announced Manfredi would be working on Volpe and I missed this?) I'll still keep my hopes up for creative and daring architecture here, but we'll see.
 
So if MIT's been showing the public, where's the web link?
 
I have a crappy image of the presentation from Twitter:

C4zhM60WcAMo8Ft.jpg:small

https://twitter.com/johnhawkinson/status/832287652363825152
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MIT has oodles of money and plenty of daring architecture on their campus.

Disappointing they'd have Elkus Manfredi developing this site. They could have gone for something far more interesting.
 
Last edited:
2/16/2017 meeting:
https://websites.godaddy.com/blob/9...-MITCommunityMeetings_Feb16-2017.pdf?6392b5d4

CambridgeDay article: http://www.cambridgeday.com/2017/02...-as-well-as-60-of-office-lab-retail-mit-says/
Marsh said it was early in the process, but the team working on the conceptual plan for the area included Elkus Manfredi Architects and local Cambridge-based Reed Hilderbrand landscape architects. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill is the architect for the federal parcel, and Marsh said the firm would also work on the larger site. “We will certainly have their perspectives on how the hand and the glove fit together,” he said, naming SOM’s lead for the project as Mustafa Abadan out of its New York office.
Click to expand...

As a footnote, Marsh said that the institute would also be buying the Red Cross building at 139 Main St., next to the existing One Broadway parking garage, which will be the site of a new Main Street building. MIT intends to use it for office space, Marsh said
Click to expand...



Mustafa K. Abadan - http://www.som.com/about/leadership/mustafa_k_abadan

I wonder if they could move the Volpe Center to a different, lower density site and build higher here.
 
I think that this is one site that could be built outside of the current construction boom. The rents of Kendall are insane, barring a total financial collapse I believe that something substantial will be built here.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly thrill inducing.

[In 1971] they lowered the roof beams on one of the most epochal architectural sights since 40 Wall St and the Chrysler Building. The JHT was a springboard to the return of Boston to it's former greatness.

But we also took a step back with bland architecture. Sometimes worse – and we've bounced. The End of the (Kevin) White period to the Menino period brought functional density punctuated by design that ranged from good to awful, with some truly puzzling 'goofs'. Nimby comeuppance also took hold.

But, now i'm excited: A good number of them are gone. We're taking grownup steps forward with eyebrow raising density. Even bit of height. 20 hour-a-day streets are here. Yet, i'm uneasy that we've arrived at parity in the paradigmatic 'safe' zone of design.

If inspired architects attend more meetings and speak out about VE, dull cladding at the Dot Block, it could help things.... The quantum theory says if we confront the cronies, interesting, inspiring, bold and exciting will return. It will appear as a leak; then break out!

Or do we have to wait 30 or 40 more years?
 
Elkus Manfredi is extremely disappointing.

Oh well. Looking forward to the SOM building.
 
PaulC said:
2/16/2017 meeting:

I wonder if they could move the Volpe Center to a different, lower density site and build higher here.
Click to expand...

No.

Early on, GSA considered allowing a developer to get all of Volpe if the developer were to build new Volpe on land it owned and the land was near MIT. I think no developer, including MIT, could come up with the four acres, so the land swap idea fell away. (MIT had four acres if it sacrificed its athletic fields.)

The Federal government is retaining title to the four acres of land on which new Volpe will be built. (And thus it is non-taxable property.)
 
"Elkus Manfredi is a planning consultant to MIT’s Investment Management Co. Cambridge-based landscape architecture firm Reed Hilderbrand is also consulting on the programming of the Volpe open space, while Chicago-based Skidmore Owings & Merrill has been designated the architect for the new GSA facility."

Elkus is planning the site, that does not mean Elkus is the architect for the 8 buildings not done by SOM.

Elkus was also the planning consultant for SoMa. Look how many different architects are on those 6 buildings. This will be 8 buildings, and I would be shocked if they didn't put out RFP's for each to get a mix just like at SoMa. The master plan will coordinate uses, layout, and general massing, but that doesn't mean that everything will be bland.

And, to be fair. Not everything Elkus Manfredi does is bland.
 
What was the rationale for requiring proximity to MIT specifically?
 
Que the lawsuits...old courthouse still sits vacant...rotting
 
1,400 units here, plus 290 units at NoMa, plus 560 units at MXD. Add those to the hundreds of units already between 3rd Square, watermark 1 & 2, and the lofts across Binney, and you have quite the residential density all of a sudden here. The 450 graduate units at SoMa should also be included.

As exciting as all that is. It draws my eye back to the Constellation Center lot.
Obviously a large cultural center would really make this feel so much more like a neighborhood. Does all this density make that any more likely? Does MIT step in at some point and donate to or partner with the existing owner to make this a reality?

That would really show what a good neighbor the Institute is.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
"Elkus Manfredi is a planning consultant to MIT’s Investment Management Co. Cambridge-based landscape architecture firm Reed Hilderbrand is also consulting on the programming of the Volpe open space, while Chicago-based Skidmore Owings & Merrill has been designated the architect for the new GSA facility."

Elkus is planning the site, that does not mean Elkus is the architect for the 8 buildings not done by SOM.

Elkus was also the planning consultant for SoMa. Look how many different architects are on those 6 buildings. This will be 8 buildings, and I would be shocked if they didn't put out RFP's for each to get a mix just like at SoMa. The master plan will coordinate uses, layout, and general massing, but that doesn't mean that everything will be bland.

And, to be fair. Not everything Elkus Manfredi does is bland.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, there will still be diversity.

I agree not everything EM does is bland. But for some reason, all their bland developments seem to be localized to the MIT area.
 
RandomWalk said:
What was the rationale for requiring proximity to MIT specifically?
Click to expand...

That was a DOT spec. Some of that may have been to stave off the avarice of other cities and states with powerful members on Congressional authorizing and appropriating committees who would grab the facility in a heartbeat. E.g., Ames Research Center (Mountain View / Sunnyvale) has so much land to spare they've leased some to Google.
https://www.wired.com/2014/02/hangar_one/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top