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

It's not so much ugly as it is inert, an Apple Store metastasized to the scale of one of the Seaport's Borg cubes.
 
I'm amazed that a university like MIT so consistently produces such dreck. They have a good school of architecture...they are smart people...this isn't that complicated...why can't they opt for decent urban planning and design??????
 
sidewalks said:
I'm amazed that a university like MIT so consistently produces such dreck. They have a good school of architecture...they are smart people...this isn't that complicated...why can't they opt for decent urban planning and design??????
Click to expand...

Not that I'll defend MIT's design choices, but this wasn't their choice - it was the Federal Government's choice. MIT's ugly buildings tend to be insane, not boring.

BTW, I don't find this design bad at all. It's exactly what I expected when SOM was announced as the architect - whether SOM is your taste or not is a different question.
 
I think security requirements dictate cladding that has the ability to withstand certain classes of attacks. That may mean VE gets you oppressive boxes.
 
Beton Brut said:
It's not so much ugly as it is inert, an Apple Store metastasized to the scale of one of the Seaport's Borg cubes.
Click to expand...

^Beton, you are, without doubt, aB's poet laureate.

sidewalks said:
I'm amazed that a university like MIT so consistently produces such dreck. They have a good school of architecture...they are smart people...this isn't that complicated...why can't they opt for decent urban planning and design??????
Click to expand...

^Not trying to be (or feeling particularly inclined to be) an apologist for MIT, but as mentioned in the Kendall Square thread: there is a difference between how "MITIMCo" (the quasi-independent entity that manages investment properties) and "MIT" (e.g., building for ed. purposes) handles things. Think: generic Osborne triangle pharma buildings (the former) versus MIT.nano (the latter). I'm not saying this absolves MIT as a whole, but it does at least make some logical sense in terms of what we're seeing...

When "MIT" builds stuff in recent years (e.g., Media Lab, .nano, Bldgs 2 and 52 gut-rehabs...things tend to go much better/bordering on greatness) (...and the dorms...well, can't explain that case).
 
I don't think we've seen the classic ArchBoston hate vomit for an initial render in quite some time. I'm almost sentimental.

There's lots of angles of this building we don't have, and a lot will depend on the quality of the materials used in the cladding. We all expected MIT's Building 3 to be crap when they went to the gradient facade, and the reality is turning out significantly better.

Anyway, logistics at the bottom:

Enabling utility work on the Federal site is ongoing, and construction of the garage and building is expected to start later this year and take approximately three years. Once the new John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center is up and running, the Institute will be able to commence redevelopment of the remaining 10 acres of the original U.S. DOT Volpe parcel. MIT’s proposal for that portion of the site, which was presented to the community during the rezoning process, features housing (including 280 affordable units), commercial and lab space, retail, open space, a community center, and a job connector.

MIT is currently advancing other commitments that were codified as part of the Volpe rezoning agreement. The Institute has already provided $500,000 toward the design of the Grand Junction multiuse community path, which will be followed by an additional $8 million contribution for continuing design and construction. MIT staff are currently working closely with the city and other stakeholders to implement this critical infrastructure project. In addition, the Institute is in the process of identifying a site for a new 500-bed graduate student residence hall — a commitment made to the City of Cambridge through the Volpe zoning process.
Click to expand...

Gameguy326 said:
First information and renders of the new DoT building. A lot shorter than expected - 212 feet - which wouldn't be bad if it weren't so bland...
Click to expand...

Also, I feel the need to note that this is not the same part of the site as where 550-600' is expected - that's the current building's footprint. This building was never expected to be taller than this.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Cambridge is real let down for us architecture enthusiasts
Click to expand...

Yes ... but not a let down for actual designers. Its a shame there is so much distance between the two.

cca
 
bigpicture7 said:
^Beton, you are, without doubt, aB's poet laureate.
Click to expand...

Very kind of you to say, thank you.

I value clarity of thought and directness of action over language.

My thinking has been most enriched by Jane Jacobs, Henry Russell Hitchcock, Vincent Scully, Paul Goldberger, and Alan Hess.
 
Equilibria said:
Not that I'll defend MIT's design choices, but this wasn't their choice - it was the Federal Government's choice. MIT's ugly buildings tend to be insane, not boring.

BTW, I don't find this design bad at all. It's exactly what I expected when SOM was announced as the architect - whether SOM is your taste or not is a different question.
Click to expand...

^^^^ This.

The building was designed for the client, and I am sure a resurrected whighlander would wax at length about the client not wanting too much electronic or visual visibility into this building by those residing or working in the surrounding buildings. It probably would be a different design if Volpe II was surrounded by other Federal buildings with restricted access.
 
Last edited:
I really think the Volpe program requirement are better suited for a site somewhere like Hanscom.
 
RandomWalk said:
I really think the Volpe program requirement are better suited for a site somewhere like Hanscom.
Click to expand...

So you don't want a few thousand jobs in Cambridge because the building's design doesn't suit your taste?

We have ugly Federal office buildings in Boston. This is lightyears better than the O'Neill building.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but the hate for these renderings is absurd. This is as or more distinctive than any office building planned or built in Kendall, Cambridge Crossing, Longwood, or the Seaport. Plenty of people complain about those being boring too of course, but come on, folks.
 
CSTH said:
Security requirements of Federal Buildings are fundamentally anti-urban.

It's a problem.
Click to expand...

I know. And I've said many times before on this forum that Federal Building security requirements are an outdated relic of a pre-9/11 mindset. No terrorists in the 21st century have their sights set on government office buildings; they have their sights set 100% on civilian soft targets.

But that doesn't change the fact that it does make sense for Volpe to locate itself in Kendall. And as many others have pointed out, this building is no worse than plenty of other recent office projects.

(Also, as a total aside, remember when terrorism was a thing that we were supposed to be always thinking about and afraid of? It's crazy to think about the extent to which terrorism has disappeared from the national psyche and common cultural/political narrative in the last few years...)
 
..and good riddance to the Terrorism headspace.

But i do think it is worse than other proposals.

There is a freaking surface parking lot ("parking court") with 20 spaces. And two open-air tractor trailer loading docks.

And a 'play area' surrounded by 10ft tall concrete slab wall.

There is a very strong vibe here of the low-rise JFK federal building downtown, which...yuck.
 
this is horrible.
The old one (which is also horrible) looks better.
I see from the article that it's being presented to the Cambridge planning board tonight (edit, looks like that was last night). Is there any way they might veto it?
Do they have a twitter handle or any method for public comment.
 
Ruairi said:
I see from the article that it's being presented to the Cambridge planning board tonight (edit, looks like that was last night). Is there any way they might veto it?
Do they have a twitter handle or any method for public comment.
Click to expand...

As this is a Federal Building, I'm pretty sure they're presenting to the planning board just as a courtesy. By law they can build whatever they want.
 
Hope all the Volpe open space counts toward the 25% open space requirement for the total project but it would be just like Cambridge to not include it and require an even bigger bite from the remaining insanely expensive acreage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top