MXD Commercial Towers | 250 - 290 Binney St | Kendall Square

Got it, thanks. So then they'd be embarking on a whole new development plan for a previously unapproved project. The whole thing is odd, and again, wouldn't be an issue if they got their tenant out in line with their construction plans.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Don't kill the messenger please.
Click to expand...

From a macro visual perspective the only building that really matters is the residential. As long as that gets built to its full height it will tie together the entire Kendall skyline. It will also set the precedent for more height in the future. I consider that to be the last critical building of the current boom.
 
From the annual Cambridge Bow-Tie bike ride, 9.29.24:

1727630024621.png
 
DZH22 said:
From a macro visual perspective the only building that really matters is the residential. As long as that gets built to its full height it will tie together the entire Kendall skyline. It will also set the precedent for more height in the future. I consider that to be the last critical building of the current boom.
Click to expand...

You may be talking about 121 Broadway, and not 250-290 Binney Street?

MXD Residential Tower | 121 Broadway | Kendall Square

Now that we have renders, let's break this out into its own thread.
archboston.com
 
The residential building was never at risk, though. Agree it's much more important and it's moving full steam ahead. To play the floor area swap game after one building is already going up seems like desperation, chicanery, or mismanagement. The time to figure this all out was before permitting, but certainly before construction was underway.
 
DZH22 said:
Yes I'm talking about the residential component by the same developer. That's 1,000,000 times more important than getting the "twin" commercial building.
Click to expand...

Gotcha Absolutely. Was confused by the two separate threads. 121 Broadway is a milestone and hopefully a gateway to more like it.
 
DZH22 said:
Yes I'm talking about the residential component by the same developer. That's 1,000,000 times more important than getting the "twin" commercial building.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you. To clarify on my end, though, I was not lamenting the potential loss of the "twin." I was lamenting it potentially getting plunked onto what is, IMO, a worse location for it than originally proposed. I could take it or leave it as its own project.
 
Hmmm - my watch on the thread mus tnot be working well, as I missed the discussion here - I only found out about it as it mad the BBJ today - probably because of the public meeting. Seems thremo-fisher is 'staying'. Personally I agree that they will get this adjustment, then go for a building at the thermo-fisher site in the future.

BBJ intro says T-F is 'staying', and reading into that I guess it wasn't worth BPX's time for the lawsuit, or else they were going to loose. I don't have a BBJ subscription so I can't see the details. Maybe time to sparn a 105 BWay thread?

bigpicture7 said:
It pains me to even post this. BXP is asking the city to consider to alternative pathways for building out the approved commercial square footage for the "twin" of this tower (the 250 Binney, current ThermoFisher low rise site).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top