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

lol what a joke

1624281542636.png

1624281636046.png
 
Yea… its not looking too good so far. Im willing to wait and see though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
I suppose we shouldn't have expected such a light/transparent glass on a federal building... The render looks light and airy, and the dark windows are taking away all of that pretty much...
 
The render aspires to be the Novartis building on Mass Ave at Albany St. The reality falls flat.
 
The interior will brighten a bit as it's fitted out; but yeah... that's some soul-sucking glass.
 
1624499134248.png

1624499333458.png

1624499360488.png

1624499398659.png

1624499496311.png


Notes all-electric buildings, and "no on-site" fossil-fuel consumption (same thing we've heard at MGH, at least it appeases the performative climate warriors [EDIT: as real as climate change is, some of these activists don't seem to understand how sustainability works, and just scream the buzzwords from the rooftops]), and the largest blackwater treatment system in the region, reusing 250,000+ gallons of greywater and blackwater.
 
^Great shots Beeline. I just want to say I disagree with the criticisms upthread. I find this facade refreshing. It's not overly dark in most lighting conditions. It is the antithesis of the tired offset window trend in Boston. And the facade has a lot of texture and depth to it. Say what you will, but this succeeds at being truly unique compared to other recent facades in the area.
 
bigpicture7 said:
^Great shots Beeline. I just want to say I disagree with the criticisms upthread. I find this facade refreshing. It's not overly dark in most lighting conditions. It is the antithesis of the tired offset window trend in Boston. And the facade has a lot of texture and depth to it. Say what you will, but this succeeds at being truly unique compared to other recent facades in the area.
Click to expand...

I think this building delivers on the clean lines modernism you'd expect from SOM.
 
Definitely holding out to pass judgement on this one... the contrast is a little jarring between window and façade material but I think it will all tie together in the end.
 
Don't have time to go through it all now, but a large new document set just posted to the city planning board site today (dated 6/12) for the MIT site redevelopment:
www.cambridgema.gov

PB368

special permit application
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov
 
bigpicture7 said:
Don't have time to go through it all now, but a large new document set just posted to the city planning board site today (dated 6/12) for the MIT site redevelopment:
www.cambridgema.gov

PB368

special permit application
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov
Click to expand...

One quick takeaway is that there is no longer an alternative where the tallest building is mid-rise. 456' (without mechanical) only. I'd have liked to see the massing assessment for block R3 mention that if the building indeed approaches 500', it's likely to be the tallest building in Cambridge for a century. It needs to be iconic. All the stuff about respecting the pedestrian passageway and anchoring the end of Broad Canal Way is nice, but this thing needs to be a bold landmark.
 
Last edited:
This will be no Cambridge Crossing pace: 10-20 years:

No building permit may be issued for building construction in either of Phases 2 or 3 until all building and associated facilities are under construction in Phase 1, and the commencement of substantial construction activity for R1 in Phase 1 shall be deemed to be a significant portion of the required residential GFA within the Final Development Plan.
Click to expand...

1625229578483.png


This is likely going to be one gigantic bathtub when construction starts. There's a massive multi-level parking garage underneath that spans most of the commercial/residential sites.

The architectural character 'analysis' for the residential buildings didn't seem too promising in terms of getting an icon: what they're taking from precedent studies is "Simple definition of pedestrian frontage, tower and top, strong expression of frame and legibility of scale, architectural language of residential" (aka like every other residential building that's gone up the past 10 years, as the images suggested).

The commercial precedents are equally depressing, but at least they acknowledge they're in the context of several iconic/well-done buildings (Media Lab, Volpe/SOM, Novaritis), and are looking at MIT Bldg 4, Harvard SEC, Cambridge Public Library, King Open School for solar control.

Here's the considerations taken so far on the 456' residential:
1625230263156.png

Many of the massing considerations for the commercial parcels remind me of Google-Kendall, and not in a good way. Way too many additional elements/movements/actions on some of them..
1625228479248.png


Other than that, everything seems pretty standard...
 
^Thanks for diving into the details, though I think you're being a bit pessimistic in some areas. The phasing plan seems reasonable given the massive scope. So long as MITIMCo is running this, it will not take 20 years. My bet is more like 8-10, with phase 1 done within 4 (from the fed's move-in to new Volpe). Some evidence is offered by the Kendall Gateway project, which also involved a ginormous underground bathtub garage and proceeded quite briskly. I'd agree with you if this was a for-profit developer/investor, looking for certain guarantees to fall into place to keep risks down as the project proceeds, but that's not how MITIMCo operates. They are investing in Kendall Square itself for the (very) long haul. They want this done, not a big hole in the ground.

Also, while I agree with you that they're not pointing at truly "iconic" designs in this package, the fact that they're citing the examples you mention above for context means design is at least being taken seriously. Regarding the tall residential tower, some of those massings alone are near iconic IMO (given Cambridge).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top