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

fattony said:
I think 500 is about right for this area too.
Click to expand...

The first (modern) structure to hit a "satisfactory" height in Kendall might open the door to additional daring projects. Perhaps not quite the same as when the restriction was lifted in Philly regarding not building taller than the statue of Billy Penn on City Hall, but we might see some truly modern, striking architecture with this at the vanguard.
 
I'm sorry for reviving this thread without news! Just curious, does anybody know if they are planning to keep the spinning semen logo for the new building?

IMG_4767 by David Z, on Flickr
 
DZH22 said:
I'm sorry for reviving this thread without news! Just curious, does anybody know if they are planning to keep the spinning semen logo for the new building?
Click to expand...

I'd assume so. It's the USDOT logo.
 
Hey Ccole, , welcome.....you hit a home run with your first post! Thanks for the links. Love the quote in strategy 5, Explode the "Superblock". Volpe is gonna be one exciting, kick-ass development to watch. You go, MIT!
 
Hadn't seen that yet, thanks!

I'd go for 2. Keeps the park space where it belongs on the SE corner. While I like the sight lines in 3, I don't like the idea of green space bordered by buildings on all sides and isolated from the major roads.
 
I sure hope the tallest building shown in the presentations is not what we end up with, from both a design and size perspective. This site is a perfect storm and there will likely never, ever be an opportunity to develop a 500'+ building in Cambridge beyond this. I hope they don't waste it. Kendall Square deserves something iconic.

If the pedestrian experience is as good as they are shooting for, an iconic building will help draw them there in the first place.
 
DZH22 said:
I sure hope the tallest building shown in the presentations is not what we end up with, from both a design and size perspective. This site is a perfect storm and there will likely never, ever be an opportunity to develop a 500'+ building in Cambridge beyond this. I hope they don't waste it. Kendall Square deserves something iconic.

If the pedestrian experience is as good as they are shooting for, an iconic building will help draw them there in the first place.
Click to expand...

I think the building they show should be taller, but the spire is a good idea. It would define a peak to the Kendall skyline that will never be surpassed.

Also, without that much to go on, I think the spire they show is close to 500'. It's much taller than the Marriott (close to 300') and the dorm in East Campus (350').
 
Damn shame they cannot or will not daylight the canal through the site.
 
Equilibria said:
I think the building they show should be taller, but the spire is a good idea. It would define a peak to the Kendall skyline that will never be surpassed.

Also, without that much to go on, I think the spire they show is close to 500'. It's much taller than the Marriott (close to 300') and the dorm in East Campus (350').
Click to expand...

In one of the views I counted 36 residential levels which appear to be sitting on a 2 storey podium, so I put it at about 400' below the spire.

So, yeah. Pretty easy to see that as 500' or more.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
In one of the views I counted 36 residential levels which appear to be sitting on a 2 storey podium, so I put it at about 400' below the spire.

So, yeah. Pretty easy to see that as 500' or more.
Click to expand...

It basically has similar proportions to the Old Hancock, when it has the potential to outreach even the New (defunct) Hancock at 200 Clarendon. They only get one shot at this. No other site can disregard Cambridge's zoning the way this one can. Why not have some guts and make a statement?
 
DZH22 said:
It basically has similar proportions to the Old Hancock, when it has the potential to outreach even the New (defunct) Hancock at 200 Clarendon. They only get one shot at this. No other site can disregard Cambridge's zoning the way this one can. Why not have some guts and make a statement?
Click to expand...

It's just a massing model...
 
I like the direction overall on all three, but it would be good to make more of that SE block as green/outdoor/activity space. The block gets some good sunlight, right on the square.

And there is a threshold of square footage in urban landscaping between mere decorative landscaping and creating a multi-use common-like park area. The massing as-is it looks more like the size of a tree lined pedestrian way or sidewalk with maybe some potential for outdoor dining areas along the edges.

Add some square footage there and you could make it useful for a greater variety of outdoor activities during the day and also still line it with some outdoor cafes/dining at the ground level.

To make up the building square footage they could go higher on a couple of the other buildings and by opening up the SE more you open up some sight lines to the new buildings.
 
DZH22 said:
No other site can disregard Cambridge's zoning the way this one can. Why not have some guts and make a statement?
Click to expand...
I dont think the non fed buildings can disregard Cambridge. There will be 2 (at least) separate properties. new Volpe gets built first and then the feds wipe their hands of the rest of the site.
 
Equilibria said:
It's just a massing model...
Click to expand...

410413
 
I’d go with 2, scheme 3’s problem is that the open area guides you to the ugliest part of the existing apartment building, so I don’t know how you fix that without rebuilding that complex
 
Mongo said:
I’d go with 2, scheme 3’s problem is that the open area guides you to the ugliest part of the existing apartment building, so I don’t know how you fix that without rebuilding that complex
Click to expand...

Yes, scheme 3 provides a lovely view corridor to the service entrance and utilities of that complex... Strange that the would have done it that way.

Scheme 3 would be pretty good if the SE block was just flipped around so that corridor was towards the center instead slanted towards the apartment's backside.
 
All 3 options have too much mandatory open space (plus the big courtyard of the Third St apartments) and the Volpe surface parking lot is criminal.

No spire-on-a-tower please, this screams for something unique and for God's sake MIT do not give it to Elkus. Yes it's just a massing model but it's already implanting the suggestion that this is what it should be. Kendall Square is all about innovation and future technologies, tired design tropes should have no place here.

Since this is Cambridge could the top half be a giant birdhouse for flying unicorns as a vibrant example of an intersectional, inter-species, co-existence utopia or a tower with the look/shape of a Prius? Just kidding my moonbat friends, sorry to get your hopes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top