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

Volpe is kind of an overlooked figure in the process by which Italian-Americans were accepted as equal members of the Governing Class (sometimes called How Italians Became "White"), particularly as a Republican

(I often forget that Foster Furcolo, the force behind "renewing" Scollay Sq into Gov Center, was Mass' first Italian-American governor, just one term before Volpe)
 
I attended the community meeting this evening and, luckily, none of the massing/heights are final. 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. I am sure the area could fill it, but whether or not it could do so profitably is another question. It still boggles my mind that MIT paid $750 million for this land, is building the new Volpe structure, has contributed so much to the community funds, and can still make this entire site profitable. All of that said, I am really inspired by everything they're taking into consideration. I wish they could get these other parcels going before finishing the government building in 2023.
 
I know I might get flack for this, but I find it too green and not urban enough. It feels like they are copying the model of a southern city, where every building has its own lawn. Instead of streetwalls it's more like towers in the park.

Very disappointing that they are considering such low heights. Do we really need 6 buildings at almost exactly the same height? (250' + mech) Clearly that shows that the zoning is too low if every building is built right up to the max allowed. This isn't the Seaport. There are no runways pointed here. Kendall (and North Point) literally have the highest allowable height limits, and least amount of legal roadblocks, in the entire urban area. It's such a waste.

Also, this is pretty much the most in-demand area of not just the city, but possibly the entire country. They could probably fill half a dozen new residentials over 500' without breaking a sweat. In another multi-verse Harvard and MIT are basically competing with each other for tallest building in the metro, and are both anchored by world-class modern icons. Yet in our reality, we can't even reach 400' in a *non-historic* area the FAA says can go 1000'.
 
I fully expect that whatever the final approved massing models are will be the buildings. Why the heck can't MIT, of all folks, afford to implement a design that has more than one building per block?
 
RandomWalk said:
I fully expect that whatever the final approved massing models are will be the buildings. Why the heck can't MIT, of all folks, afford to implement a design that has more than one building per block?
Click to expand...

1. This MIT almost surely isn't related to the MIT you know and think about when it comes to architecture, finance wise. This is unrelated to its endowment, which can afford the quality architecture they put up on campus. The only relation to MIT's endowment that this project has is that it is being administered and managed by the same team that manages their endowment (MITIMCo). That said, I think this model MIT is creating is interesting - it's diversifying its funding sources in ways few schools are actively doing. I'm also not entirely in disagreement with you. It's rather typical isolated/island blocks. Can they break up the massing into smaller blocks? Maybe there's a formula for pulling it off somewhere. Whether or not that's been explored could maybe be asked.

2. I don't think the nature of the work they expect to happen here can demand smaller blocks/buildings on the commercial side of things. They're likely going to be targeting/leasing out to innovators/labs/startups, who need/want large and uninterrupted floorplates.

3. Like ccole said, they already paid $750 million for the site, are going to have to wait several years before they can build anything that will bring money back, paid money into the community groups and projects (and there are a lot, going through that slide deck), and are funding the construction of Volpe, and that's just for this site. Kendall East and other projects are also big invoice items. The fact that they're still finding it feasible is beyond belief.

----------

Is the goal here is to continue Kendall Square more east? If so, I don't understand the setback with the greenspace along Broadway. That contradicts the language of the rest of Kendall, which is largely defined by its streetwalls. Logically, however, a lot of the planning so far makes sense. The larger "Third Street Park" space draws someone in and takes them toward "Broad Canal Way," and the rest of the development toward East Cambridge, where they expect most of the activity to occur. I suppose I'm most confused with what's actually planned along Broadway. The site plan seems to show a very wide sidewalk and green space, with retail on the corners of the buildings. The buildings don't seem to come up to the street - they seem more isolated, which I'm not sure I'm a fan of. But the rendering of Broadway looks very promising, and doesn't seem to reflect the site plan, unless I'm reading it wrong.
 
Living in the city during the pandemic I, more than ever, appreciate green space. I wonder if the shifting preferences are impacting the plans here.
 
617 said:
Living in the city during the pandemic I, more than ever, appreciate green space. I wonder if the shifting preferences are impacting the plans here.
Click to expand...
I know in Washington there are more than a few people who want out of high-rise residential because they fear contagion from sharing elevators, common spaces, corridors, etc. There is a sense of not being able to control one's environment, and being reliant on others to be socially responsible.
 
ccole said:
I attended the community meeting this evening and, luckily, none of the massing/heights are final. 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. I am sure the area could fill it, but whether or not it could do so profitably is another question. It still boggles my mind that MIT paid $750 million for this land, is building the new Volpe structure, has contributed so much to the community funds, and can still make this entire site profitable. All of that said, I am really inspired by everything they're taking into consideration. I wish they could get these other parcels going before finishing the government building in 2023.
Click to expand...
The $750 million is not the net price for this property. MIT gets to deduct the cost of Volpe, so if 'new' Volpe costs $350 million, the cost to MIT for the rest is $400 million.

IIRC, of the 11 acre Federal parcel, four acres remains as Federal land for new Volpe, leaving seven acres to be developed.

Of the seven acres, a minimum of two acres is to be reserved as public open space, leaving no more than five acres on which to build. << This was set by Cambridge zoning before the auction of the Volpe property.

Five acres of developable land, with a gross square footage generally not to exceed 2.85 million gsf.
(For comparison, Pinnacle is limited to 900,000 gsf on less than 3./4 acre.) If one fully built out the five acres, or about 218,000 sq ft, and had 13 foot floor heights, the uniform building height would be about 170 feet..

To the extent that one went tall, say to 500 feet (the max allowed by zoning for one residential building), that would only increase the amount of public open space. Zoning further specifies that the footprints of buildings above 250 feet cannot occupy more than ten percent of the land area, i.e., 21,800 sq ft.

No less than 40 percent of the allowed 2.85 million GSF must be residential. With this as a constraint, MIT is building 950 beds for graduate students, 280 affordable units, and 20 middle income units. The presentation did not indicate how many units would house the 950 beds of MIT students. Total number of units is about 1400.
 
I am amused that the KendallMIT.com renders include the old MIT Coop building.
 
ccole said:
I attended the community meeting this evening and, luckily, none of the massing/heights are final. 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. I am sure the area could fill it, but whether or not it could do so profitably is another question. It still boggles my mind that MIT paid $750 million for this land, is building the new Volpe structure, has contributed so much to the community funds, and can still make this entire site profitable. All of that said, I am really inspired by everything they're taking into consideration. I wish they could get these other parcels going before finishing the government building in 2023.
Click to expand...
Absolutely hilarious that there would be "too many units" brought to the market if they did 500 ft here. Cambridge prices are continually spiralling up and rival Back Bay in Kendall. Cambridge needs to push residential density here (they won't).
 
curcuas said:
Absolutely hilarious that there would be "too many units" brought to the market if they did 500 ft here. Cambridge prices are continually spiralling up and rival Back Bay in Kendall. Cambridge needs to push residential density here (they won't).
Click to expand...

I'm sure MIITIMCo has good people advising them on residential markets, but then again, I don't think they've ever marketed a major residential project. It's probably not a coincidence, though, that Divco West, MITIMCo, US2, and FRIT all settle on 275-350' as the roof for a residential tower in Somerville and Cambridge. Maybe we internet pundits don't actually know what will work better than professional real estate developers.

FWIW, it's very possible that it's 380' at this point to sell the master plan. They could come back with 500' later once they've built a couple 250-footers, and they certainly don't want a debate over height at this phase of the process. Save it for when you have a striking design to put up against those arguments, rather than just a massing model.

And as Stel points out, the height has no bearing on the amount of housing, only how high up in the air it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top