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

Construction fences now down (7/23):

kvp-2-1.jpg

kvp-2-2.jpg

kvp-2-3.jpg

kvp-2-4.jpg

kvp-2-5.jpg

kvp-2-6.jpg
 
I like the mid-century architecture, but not the mid-century urban form...

Why are the setbacks so significant? Isn't it just DOT?

It looks like it's bollard-ed, berm-ed, and CCTV-ed excessively - is this a 'target?'
In this case, I think the landscaping and the setbacks are appropriate. The building is classic and stately, like a monument of sorts, so visually it works in that kind of spread out setting. And I actually like the undulating grassy berms.
 
In this case, I think the landscaping and the setbacks are appropriate. The building is classic and stately, like a monument of sorts, so visually it works in that kind of spread out setting. And I actually like the undulating grassy berms.

I would further add that, assuming we take as givens (at least to some extent) the physical security requirements, this is a dramatic improvement over the present states of aesthetic and urbanization of Kendall Square as a whole because the existing Volpe building occupies the dead center of a 14-acre site and is surrounded by surface lots, underutilized plazas, and buffer zones. This new building is shifted almost all the way over to the Binney St. side, leaving the entire Broadway side set for planned development of a new, dense streetwall. Binney, on the other hand, was never going to have a nice streetwall (at least any time soon) for reasons no fault of this project's - the entire street is devoid of public-facing architecture and has a lot of large and monolithic blocks and dead spaces. So this new project enables better urbanization elsewhere on the parcel - the correctly prioritized Broadway side - while still managing to be a net improvement of the Binney side (away from the Kendall core). If one has to have a Fed building in this vicinity, I'll take this particular configuration.
 
I like the mid-century architecture, but not the mid-century urban form...

Why are the setbacks so significant? Isn't it just DOT?

It looks like it's bollard-ed, berm-ed, and CCTV-ed excessively - is this a 'target?'
It is DOT run, but a lot of the projects are DOD and Homeland Security related (and highly classified).

Think transportation in the broadest sense, including protecting passengers and critical transportation infrastructure.

Yes, it is a potential target.
 
Article w/ a neat photo spread from the architects:

f04959a619bd97914f0af14cafffb148.jpg

Image: © Dave Burk/SOM
 
This may seem minor to some forumers but it's a big deal in my book: when the new Volpe gov building opened a few months ago, it was frustrating that they created these nice landscaped/hardscaped pathways, but they were basically useless to the general public because they didn't lead anywhere (other than the building itself). One of them dead-ended against the block-long security fence along the Loughrey walkway (Old Sixth St). People asked MITIMco why the fence wasn't cut open to allow pedestrian passage, and they said that, yes, that is the plan, but they couldn't do that until they took title for the Volpe property, which couldn't happen until the gov. took occupancy/ signed off on the new tower, etc. Fortunately the fence is now cut open and you can now pass between the mid-point of the Loughrey walkway the the interior of the Volpe parcel. Long time coming.
 
I'd like to see a view of what it looks like inside looking out through those fins.
 
Did not realize until today that they planted some cherry blossoms on this site! A nice touch given that it is a federal building. (Looks like we aren't quite at peak bloom though!)

20240330_114330.jpg
20240330_114038.jpg
 
The old building now has K-Rails and chain link fencing up around it. Might be time for abatement.
Indeed, I have been watching the fencing and site prep grow.

The entire "Old Volpe" campus, including the old building, green spaces, and old parking areas are now completely encircled by construction fencing as of this morning (10/30):
vp-2-2.jpg
 
Based on the somewhat recent launch of several websites and the ostensible branding, I believe MITIMCo is rebranding this entire development as "Kendall Common"

Mods (@BeeLine or @vanshnookenraggen ), I suggest either renaming this thread "Kendall Common (née Volpe Redevelopment) | Kendall Sq. | Cambridge"....(or else we should create a new home base for Kendall Common. My vote would be preserve this thread as the home base, where as the name "Kendall Common (née Volpe Redevelopment)..." would come up in searchers for either."

I had thought that Kendal Common was just the temporary name they gave to that pop-up roller skating rink thing, but I was mistaken, it seems to be the name of the whole development.

Sources:

^Within above, the Kendall Common Vision page very clearly is pointing to the multi-building development here:

^Which, interestingly has a great interactive graphic on project phasing:
kendall_common_phases.png


Lastly:
They have launched a new Construction Updates site, also clearly referring to Kendall Common as the name of the overall multi-building development:
https://www.kendallcommonconstruction.com/home

^within above, a new (to me) aerial rendering of the whole site:
kendcomm_overview.png
 
^Further solidifying the name/branding change to "Kendall Common", the changes have propagated to the MIT Capital Projects site. That page is now named "Kendall Common (previously Volpe site)":

Meanwhile, from the staging graphic on the project site (https://kendallcommon.com/vision/), separate viewing of the Phase 1, 2, and 3 segments shows:
Ph1.png

ph2.png

ph3.png


This would seem to imply we should see a design for R1 soon, because we've seen C1 and C3 proposed (but nothing else yet) and R1 is supposed to be concurrent with those two.
If I had another couple of mins, I'd try to go look up the phasing schedule buried in some doc on the planning board site. But I figure it will get rehashed (more accurately) soon in whatever the next new doc. that gets posted there is (perhaps R1 design) so I will hold off (anyone else be my guest). I do recall a year ago them saying Fall'24 would be the overall start, which seems to be correct.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top