MXD Residential Tower | 121 Broadway | Kendall Square

Nobody would be surprised if that happened and everybody is thinking how much it would suck. I really hope not.
 
The city government of Cambridge (and the Cambridge NIBYs as well) need to realize that stubby boxes everywhere, from Cambridge Crossing all the way to Alewife, will just make Cambridge a boring and mediocre place. The Kendall Square area is really ideal for some taller buildings. It's not next to any old residential areas, it's on the Red Line, it's out of the FAA flight path, and it's right across the river from central Boston. It makes sense for at least this area of Cambridge to have some taller buildings, to break through the buzz-saw stubby profile of that city.
 
Charlie_mta said:
The city government of Cambridge (and the Cambridge NIBYs as well) need to realize that stubby boxes everywhere, from Cambridge Crossing all the way to Alewife, will just make Cambridge a boring and mediocre place. The Kendall Square area is really ideal for some taller buildings. It's not next to any old residential areas, it's on the Red Line, it's out of the FAA flight path, and it's right across the river from central Boston. It makes sense for at least this area of Cambridge to have some taller buildings, to break through the buzz-saw stubby profile of that city.
Click to expand...

The question is whether the opportunity to realize that is largely past. The MXD and Volpe development plans allowed for one plateau-buster each.

I'd love to see 600-650' somewhere in Kendall, but what's left?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
Equilibria said:
The question is whether the opportunity to realize that is largely past. The MXD and Volpe development plans allowed for one plateau-buster each.

I'd love to see 600-650' somewhere in Kendall, but what's left?
Click to expand...

Plaza in front of Whitehead institute! Kidding/not kidding. That has shown up as a developable parcel in certain CRA graphics (I believe, and I think in the context of the institute itself expanding; but, hey, it's available land). But anything/everything would require rezoning. The approved MXD and Volpe plans are the only I know of that currently allow for height, and at only one bldg per.

The other thing to consider is time itself. It will take at least a decade to fully build out Volpe. Between now and then, the population will change (somewhat), sentiments could change...nothing is to stop a new zoning petition (politically untenable at present) at some distant future date to grant height.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
The question is whether the opportunity to realize that is largely past. The MXD and Volpe development plans allowed for one plateau-buster each.

I'd love to see 600-650' somewhere in Kendall, but what's left?
Click to expand...

Actually, a more serious answer (but much further in the future, realistically) is that MIT still has plenty of parcels near Kendall that are not maximally utilized and have (probably expendable) low-rise structures on them at present. Parsons Lab would make for a nice flatiron type highrise; the Albany Street garage is not going to be there forever; the Main St. facilities lot that was supposed to be the "site 6" building for SoMa could be re-proposed as something else. I think there are a few others too. Given how much there is to develop at Volpe, I wouldn't see any of this happening any time soon, but if MIT really wanted to build high in the future, they could. Not sure about other developers, and can't really see MIT divesting any of the above mentioned lots to anyone else.
 
Time for fun with red polygons!

Albany Street:

1645216546789.png


Parsons Lab:

1645216579136.png


Site 6:

1645216607482.png
 
Equilibria are you the one who used to post these massing models in the future skyline thread? I forgot about that, that was much appreciated.
 
stick n move said:
Equilibria are you the one who used to post these massing models in the future skyline thread? I forgot about that, that was much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Don't think so, I'm more of a dabbler. I think Downburst did it.
 
Some stats on the units breakdown (apologies if someone already noted these). Btw - seems like low square footage for the units. Must be rentals, right? Makes for great density either way. 84 affordable units is good. What does ‘mid income’ mean?

A5D290BD-1498-47A9-A863-F6A16CB2D426.jpeg
302F57AB-12B6-42FD-AB2C-681FB5CE2885.jpeg
 
Equilibria said:
Full design review documents for 3/15: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media...Amend2/sp315_135broadway_design1_20220316.pdf

One not-terribly-helpful comment has resulted in a silly amenity balcony, but it seems like this design was received well.

The post above has a scrollable version of the renders, but here's something else: the lighting plan.

View attachment 22722
Click to expand...

Its about damn time! Hopefully this goes through. The death star skyline does have a cool ominence to it, but some accent lighting would be great imo. It doesnt have to be shenzhen, though no city in the us is even close lighting wise, but a few well placed lighting schemes would be nice.
 
Dr. Rosen Rosen said:
Some stats on the units breakdown (apologies if someone already noted these). Btw - seems like low square footage for the units. Must be rentals, right? Makes for great density either way. 84 affordable units is good. What does ‘mid income’ mean?
Click to expand...

Possibly this: https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/forapplicants/middleincomerentalprogram

80-120% AMI so something like 70-100k for 1 person for instance. Says rent would be 30% of the household gross (?) so rent at 70k would be 1750 maybe? That's still super high but surely the market rate units will be 3+ grand for just the studio so it's a bit of a deal.

(70k being 80% sounds rather generous for one person, but hey)
 
Last edited:
From the Design Review document that Equilibria helpfully posted in Post #94:

As proposed, the building will be 476' to the top of the mechs [p. 36].

I like the proportions and the lighting plan is great, but the building's exterior looks way too much (to my untrained ideas) like 115 Winthrop (which I am a fan of in its current place thus far). Feels a bit derivative given the innovation hub that is Kendall Sq.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top