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

I think that tells you way more about Cambridge politics and it's planning likes; just like their love of small retail pavilions and featureless parks like we see in Alewife and Northpoint.
 
curcuas said:
I think that tells you way more about Cambridge politics and it's planning likes; just like their love of small retail pavilions and featureless parks like we see in Alewife and Northpoint.
Click to expand...

Somerville is getting the same heights, and they're as pro-development as you can imagine.

And small retail pavilions in parks means they are not, by definition, featureless. And the parks in Alewife (the area around the brook) are actually really nice.
 
Are developers of projects like this required to estimate trip generation per landuse-unit per day by mode? At some point *somebody* should say Hmm, we just added 400 peak-hour trips to the Red Line....
 
Arlington said:
Are developers of projects like this required to estimate trip generation per landuse-unit per day by mode? At some point *somebody* should say Hmm, we just added 400 peak-hour trips to the Red Line....
Click to expand...

Silly, everyone knows that you can pack infinite people onto a subway train! Congestion only exists on roads!
 
ccole said:
I did inquire about the massing currently maxing out at 382 ft. vs. the 500 ft. maximum in the zoning and they said that the number of units in a 500-foot residential building would be a lot to bring to the market at once.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain this line of thinking to me? Let's ignore other motivations such as avoiding pushback against a 500 footer, and also assume that 500' does mean more units than 382'. MITIMCo is afraid that the number of units at this larger size would introduce a glut in the market. I understand why a RE developer might come to this conclusion if they were selling the property upon completion. But is MITIMCo selling condos? Won't all this residential be rentals? Isn't the worse case for them that you depress rents for a few years and then things pop right back up because you're in an incredibly strong, and durably strong, housing market like Kendall Sq?

I guess my broader question is if one is building an asset they plan to own for decades, does it ever make economic sense to build less than is is allowed to avoid flooding the market with supply in the short term, when the demand will almost certainly be there in the medium to long term? Are the folks looking at the financials just much more concerned about 20 year returns than 50 year returns?
 
I think the answer to the question was a 'political; answer, not a real estate market answer.

MIT has to construct a minimum of 1.14 million gsf of residential. Shaving that gsf number by 20 percent to allow for common areas, utilities, etc. generates 870,000 gsf of occupiable living space. 870,000 / 1400 units = about 625 sq ft per unit.

Knowns: 30 units of middle income housing, 270 units of affordable housing. 950 beds for graduate students.

Assumptions: The 950 MIT beds are for unmarried students, or married students with both spouses matriculating at MIT, and there are two beds per unit, that's 475 residential units.

475 + 270 + 30 = 775 units; 1400 - 775 = 625 market rate units.
 
Boston has to build 170k units to meet demand over 20 years. The demand would absolutely be there. That statement was clearly a nice way to say they just wanna build and not fight over the extra 200’.
 
Equilibria said:
Maybe we internet pundits don't actually know what will work better than professional real estate developers.
Click to expand...

Isn’t it in the best interest of professional real estate developers to keep housing prices in Cambridge as high as possible?
 
I am less concerned as to why the tall building is not so tall and more concerned why the shorter buildings are not so tall...and why there isn't density in other ways.
 
Blackbird said:
Isn’t it in the best interest of professional real estate developers to keep housing prices in Cambridge as high as possible?
Click to expand...
Unless there is risk of housing saturation (really there is no sign of that), more units make developers more money than less units.
 
Blackbird said:
Isn’t it in the best interest of professional real estate developers to keep housing prices in Cambridge as high as possible?
Click to expand...
Putting aside whether MIT is a residential real estate developer, if the net cost to MIT is $400 million rather than $750 million, that's $80 million per developable acre. For $80 million an acre, then the housing you construct on land that expensive is luxury housing. If one were to build 100 units on an acre of land costing $80 million, the land acquisition cost alone is $800,000 per unit.
 
MITMCo acquires land, but almost never sells it. Instead, they’re looking for the long term income from the land. I don’t think they’re as sensitive to land acquisition costs in their development plans.

I think they’re responsible for the long vacant lot at School and Cherry St, which I recall was hung up in some fighting between them and the city.

The vacant lot on the corner of Brookline and Watson St is another one of theirs. It may finally be getting action on the donation for affordable housing.
 
The new Volpe is rising! Steel is now up to the second floor
Volpe #1.jpg

Volpe #2.jpg

Volpe #3.jpg

Volpe #4.jpg
 
news.mit.edu

Volpe redevelopment project launches next phase

MIT’s proposed redevelopment of the 14-acre Volpe parcel in Kendall Square is ready to start a new chapter in its review and approval process. With the Institute’s design and construction of the new John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center on four acres of the site underway, the...
news.mit.edu news.mit.edu
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top