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

[SeamusMcFly]

I know it wasn't the real point, but.... While what you just posted might be "iconic", they are also making me retch at how hideous they are. Besides the fanned out thing that looks like a subway head house. The rest would make me very very sad if built in Boston of Cambridge,

 

[DZH22]

The Custom House Tower did it at 496 ft....

The Custom House was built in 1915 and was the tallest building in Boston for almost 50 years. Now it's hidden (or about to be) from most angles except from the Harbor.

Where are you getting "a billion" from? The deal was $750 million.

The billion includes the teardown and rebuild of the current and future Volpe building. Once they do that, they'll be approximately a billion in the hole before they start on a single structure that can recoup their investment.

yeah, short buildings in modern cities can't be iconic.

And yet 3 out of 4 of those are surrounded by much larger buildings to help draw people to the area. Also, none of those are built "instead of" what could have potentially been the tallest building in the city. (in Cambridge's case likely forever) You really think some 300' stubs could draw people in like the World Trade Center?

If they don't build at least 1 of the parcels as tall as possible, the complex won't stand out from the rest of Cambridge and it kind of defeats the purpose. What's the draw of Kendall now? What's the draw of "more of the same?" Are you also one of the people calling for a 400' building at Winthrop Square?

 

[JumboBuc]

The billion includes the teardown and rebuild of the current and future Volpe building. Once they do that, they'll be approximately a billion in the hole before they start on a single structure that can recoup their investment.

The $750 million price includes the cost of the new Volpe. Demoing the old Volpe would probably be outside of that, true, but no way that will cost a quarter billion.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see MIT lease out the old Volpe space for a time after DOT moves out and before that parcel is redeveloped.

 

[KentXie]

The Custom House was built in 1915 and was the tallest building in Boston for almost 50 years. Now it's hidden (or about to be) from most angles except from the Harbor.

It's still iconic today. Towers don't become less iconic because they are hidden (unless they are ONLY iconic because they are tall). The Rockefeller Tower is still iconic even though it is surrounded by towers of similar heights. And last I check, this proposal is noticeably taller than it's neighbors.

 

[DZH22]

yeah, short buildings in modern cities can't be iconic.

Actually, here's my other question. If you want to stick with the iconic short building angle, why build it HERE on THIS SITE at all? Why not on any other site that doesn't allow height anyway? Why under-develop the single place in the whole city that could support something tall? If anything, shouldn't this complex be grandiose enough to support BOTH? An iconic new tower to forever redefine the Cambridge/Kendall skyline, and then something like you posted within the complex, which would then be seen by everybody who was curious enough to come check out the tower.

It's still iconic today. Towers don't become less iconic because they are hidden (unless they are ONLY iconic because they are tall). The Rockefeller Tower is still iconic even though it is surrounded by towers of similar heights. And last I check, this proposal is noticeably taller than it's neighbors.

Actually if the Custom House was already hidden at the time it was built, it likely wouldn't have been nearly as iconic at the time or be considered so now. That would mean we already had 500'+ buildings pre-1915 capable of blocking the tower. Instead, this was able to stand out as a true Beacon downtown for over half a century before the financial district towers started overshadowing it.

Regarding the current massing model, the only piece that is noticeably taller is the dog-shit spire that was tacked on. That design is terrible, and the only place that truly allows a huge building on the whole site is slated to be green space. (corner of Broadway and Third) Hopefully this is sent back to the drawing board.

 

[nm88]

You can find fault with Found's four example's - though Wright's Guggenheim status seems undeniable to me - you can't deny their obvious street cred. Sure, the design may not be to your taste but place-making they all are. I think that's what we all hope for. Tall or otherwise. Place-making, or at least place-enhancing.

Good design succeeds. Often in ways we don't expect. That's what I'm hoping for. More than height.

(Found, thanks for the examples.)

 

[stellarfun]

The $750 million is not a net price. The cost of new Volpe will be deducted. With respect to remediation, the cost of that may be outside the $750 million. However, if MIT discovers contamination that was not identified by GSA prior to the auction, the cost of remediating that would also likely be deducted from the $750 million.
_________________________

I doubt MIT is interested in building and being leasehold landlord for a condo association's 'iconic' residential tower in Kendall Square. That's not what they do, Would MIT sell off a parcel for an iconic residential tower? It might, but probably only for a nearby land swap of equal or more value. The Feds are keeping four of Volpe's 11 acres. Why would MIT, after paying all those millions, further diminish the size of the land it bought?

 

[found5dollar]

If anything, shouldn't this complex be grandiose enough to support BOTH? An iconic new tower to forever redefine the Cambridge/Kendall skyline, and then something like you posted within the complex, which would then be seen by everybody who was curious enough to come check out the tower.

With the exception of maybe the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, people do not go to an area because of the tall buildings there. They go for the things close to the ground, the cultural, economic, and lifestlye amenities they can readily reach. People do not go to Copley Square because of the Hancock Tower, they go to lounge on the lawn, go to the library or churches, or go shopping on Newbury Street. If the Hancock wasn't there, people would still go. if the library and the square were "iconic" tall buildings instead, it would most likely be lifeless there.

 

[found5dollar]

You can find fault with Found's four example's - though Wright's Guggenheim status seems undeniable to me - you can't deny their obvious street cred. Sure, the design may not be to your taste but place-making they all are. I think that's what we all hope for. Tall or otherwise. Place-making, or at least place-enhancing.

Good design succeeds. Often in ways we don't expect. That's what I'm hoping for. More than height.

(Found, thanks for the examples.)

Thank you. One thing people often forget is that "iconic" doesn't always mean "beautiful" It means something that is widely acknowledged as distinctive. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is iconic only because it is a grand failure.

 

[DZH22]

People do not go to Copley Square because of the Hancock Tower....

I actually disagree with this. The Hancock brings plenty of people there, then the rest of the stuff keeps them there. The tower also brings a sense of place to the area that would otherwise be missing.

A lesser example of this is, believe it or not, Avalon North Station. (for now) Lots of people actually say how grateful they are that it was built, because now they can pinpoint exactly where North Station is! Same with the Pierce. It visually ties together the edge of Fenway and Longwood in a way that wouldn't be possible with a building half its height. Get a tall, visible building, and it's easy to point and say "that's where such and such is." When it comes to navigating Boston, tall landmarks provide a public service and short ones get buried until you're right on top of them.

I think that's what we all hope for. Tall or otherwise. Place-making, or at least place-enhancing.

If it isn't tall enough to be seen, how would people even know it's there? It's not as if Boston is lacking in attractions. Get one giant tower, and plenty of people will eventually mosey over due to the curiosity factor. Add an unimpeded observation deck with possibly the best view in the area and there's your main attraction. Kendall as is isn't going to draw the biggest crowds. How do you expect to pull the people in? If whatever they build doesn't stand out, most people will never know it's there. The best advertisement is VISIBILITY!

 

[KentXie]

Thank you. One thing people often forget is that "iconic" doesn't always mean "beautiful" It means something that is widely acknowledged as distinctive. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is iconic only because it is a grand failure.

+1.

If it isn't tall enough to be seen, how would people even know it's there?

Because of it's significance in history or in architecture. Fenway Park is considered an icon yet you wouldn't even see it unless you're up against, in it, or flying over it. South Station is also iconic. Elsewhere, Penn station is another iconic structure that isn't tall. Neither is Madison Square Garden. The Louvre...I can go on.

It's not as if Boston is lacking in attractions. Get one giant tower, and plenty of people will eventually mosey over due to the curiosity factor. Add an unimpeded observation deck with possibly the best view in the area and there's your main attraction.

And yet the biggest attractions in Boston is not the Prudential or the John Hancock Tower, they are the Boston Common/Public Garden, Faneuil Hall, Fenway Park, Newbury St. In fact, look up the top 10 attractions in Boston and the Prudential Tower and John Hancock are literally afterthoughts.

The best advertisement is VISIBILITY!

Yes and visibility can be through pictures, not only height.

 

[DZH22]

Because of it's significance in history or in architecture. Fenway Park is considered a icon yet you wouldn't even see it unless you're up against, in it, or flying over it. South Station is also iconic. Elsewhere, Penn station is another iconic structure that isn't tall. Neither is Madison Square Garden. The Louvre...I can go on.

Please do go on because I'm about to shut down all of your examples one by one.

Fenway Park - 2nd oldest baseball stadium in the country, seats almost 38,000 people per game for at least 81 home games (not including playoffs), plus has many other events. There is a reason for people to go here.

South Station - Tough to miss when all the commuter rail trains from the South/West, plus the trains from points South (such as NYC), plus the Red and Silver line all come through here.

Penn Station - Same as above, a transportation hub is naturally going to have people transporting through it.

Madison Square Garden - Similar to Fenway Park, this is an event-based structure which includes being the home of a major sports team. (if you want to call the Knicks a major sports team, ha!)

The Louvre - The world's largest museum, and among the most famous landmarks in one of the world's largest and most famous cities. How is anything in Kendall Square supposed to compete with the Louvre? Even MOFA isn't competing with the Louvre.

Basically your examples are either sports arenas (not going to happen in Kendall, and certainly wouldn't be iconic), the most historical transportation hubs in major cities (compared to what, the Kendall Square T stop?) and possibly the world's most famous museum. How do ANY of those apply to the potential uses here?

And yet the biggest attractions in Boston is not the Prudential or the John Hancock Tower, they are the Boston Common/Public Garden, Faneuil Hall, Fenway Park, Newbury St. In fact, look up the top 10 attractions in Boston and the Prudential Tower and John Hancock are literally afterthoughts.

I'm not saying they are necessarily the attractions. The Hancock in particular, since it closed its observation deck, has nothing to provide to the public from that perspective. What it does provide is a visible sense of place. You can see it from afar and know that Trinity Church, Copley Square, Boston Public Library, and Boylston Street are all right there. See the Pru and you know that the Hynes is by there, and the reflecting pool, and the Pru Mall. These are the visible landmarks that help you find the shorter destinations in between. Get a Hancock or Pru sized building in Kendall and it would do the same thing. One could see the huge building and immediately know the space it occupies. For Kendall in particular, this would be a positive, since it's basically a blob of fatties between 150'-300'. What better way to orient yourself than with something that stands out?

 

[stellarfun]

The iconic Penn Station was demolished decades ago for Madison Square Garden. The iconic Baths of Caracalla were destroyed over 1150 years ago.

Its an abuse of the word "iconic" to believe that anything "iconic" will be built in Kendall Square.

 

[Proposition Joe]

Its an abuse of the word "iconic" to believe that anything "iconic" will be built in Kendall Square.

They already built the Sata Center though.

 

[nm88]

DZ, the notion of height offering one a geographical locater is true enough and perhaps worthwhile, but is that a worthy goal all by itself? Maybe you don't mean it that way. It's a good by-product, for sure. I hope, for one, the design digs deeper than that. I'm sure you mean that as well.

I'm not a height junkie, as some of you may know. But I'm all for it it when its appropriate and makes sense and meets the ground well - the last always a challenge. This location, the size of the property, it seems to me, presents a fine opportunity for height. Cambridge, MIT, Kendall Sq., Boston, may all be well-served by an outstanding design with height.

And you'd get you locater, DZ, which we would all no doubt make use of. (May I suggest Jeanne Gang in Chicago? Love her tall stuff!)

 

[stellarfun]

They already built the Sata Center though.

I don't think the Stata Center is an iconic building. Gehry's tumbledown buildings have become an overworked motif, and introduce unnecessary complexity with reepect to both function and upkeep.. More cute than clever. And IMO, MIT subsequently tried hiding Stata by surrounding it with newer buildings, each pretending Stata wasn't there.

 

[KentXie]

Please do go on because I'm about to shut down all of your examples one by one.

Fenway Park - 2nd oldest baseball stadium in the country, seats almost 38,000 people per game for at least 81 home games (not including playoffs), plus has many other events. There is a reason for people to go here.

South Station - Tough to miss when all the commuter rail trains from the South/West, plus the trains from points South (such as NYC), plus the Red and Silver line all come through here.

Penn Station - Same as above, a transportation hub is naturally going to have people transporting through it.

Madison Square Garden - Similar to Fenway Park, this is an event-based structure which includes being the home of a major sports team. (if you want to call the Knicks a major sports team, ha!)

The Louvre - The world's largest museum, and among the most famous landmarks in one of the world's largest and most famous cities. How is anything in Kendall Square supposed to compete with the Louvre? Even MOFA isn't competing with the Louvre.

Basically your examples are either sports arenas (not going to happen in Kendall, and certainly wouldn't be iconic), the most historical transportation hubs in major cities (compared to what, the Kendall Square T stop?) and possibly the world's most famous museum. How do ANY of those apply to the potential uses here?



I'm not saying they are necessarily the attractions. The Hancock in particular, since it closed its observation deck, has nothing to provide to the public from that perspective. What it does provide is a visible sense of place. You can see it from afar and know that Trinity Church, Copley Square, Boston Public Library, and Boylston Street are all right there. See the Pru and you know that the Hynes is by there, and the reflecting pool, and the Pru Mall. These are the visible landmarks that help you find the shorter destinations in between. Get a Hancock or Pru sized building in Kendall and it would do the same thing. One could see the huge building and immediately know the space it occupies. For Kendall in particular, this would be a positive, since it's basically a blob of fatties between 150'-300'. What better way to orient yourself than with something that stands out?

You didn't shut me down at all. Instead you prove that having height does not an iconic building make.

But if you really want to get into strictly buildings, here are a few:
Torre Agbar
Merchandise Mart
Gate of Europe
Turning Torso (which is around 600 but basically any shorter derivatives of it would be an example)
Cathedral of Learning
Cira Center
Capitol Records
Time Square

Basically all these buildings listed are around 500 or so feet or shorter. Their unique architecture/size/historical significance are what made them iconic, not necessarily height. You can also include the fan shaped tower proposed at the seaport as an example of another iconic tower that if built will stand out even among a sea of similar height building. And IIRC, the 500 ft tower on Boylston Street that was never built was often deemed iconic amongst members here so to say that 500 ft in Cambridge where it would not be overshadowed by the Pry is absolutely bs.

 

[odurandina]

Not that this is any revelation, but this project is little more than just the solid Binney infill already under construction.

Not that there's anything wrong with more good office parks and some housing infill. But there's absolutely nothing even approaching iconic planned for Cambridge.

So sad.

 

[SlothofDespond]

I know it wasn't the real point, but.... While what you just posted might be "iconic", they are also making me retch at how hideous they are. Besides the fanned out thing that looks like a subway head house. The rest would make me very very sad if built in Boston of Cambridge,

I like the Guggenheim. The middle thing is hideous and inhuman. The WTC Station is sort of neat, I guess, but probably a huge waste of money for something that looks like it is trying too hard to be iconic and will be covered in water stains in no time.

 

[tangent]

Kendall Square to the world of Technology should be as Wall Street is to the world of Finance.

Perhaps a distinct giant bronze fractal statue that people could take pictures of with a background of distinctly Kendall Square buildings would do it. Lit with LED colored lights at night. Something that is beautiful, meaningful and thematic.

Something that aligns in the foreground with either this view:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.362...4!1scnP2VQ4MTs66ugA2a2Y4Vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Or this view:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.362...4!1sC5CZ-Bq2tXLLEAPAHJJTjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The buildings themselves should just help provide the context to the ground level perspective. As the granite clad buildings surrounding the Wall Street Bull provide the sort of context that underlines Wall Street's importance and longevity as a financial center for the world.