MXD Residential Tower | 121 Broadway | Kendall Square

bigpicture7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

All of those sites are kind of too small for the footprint a building like this would merit. I do think that the current site 6 plan is a waste and they should go taller, but they can't/wouldn't go that tall. Volpe is the best bet for something that exceeds this building's height.
 
So, the planning board recently posted a decision document regarding this development. I'm no expert at reading these, but if I am interpreting correctly, this is a conditional approval of an amendment to the pertinent Infill Development Concept Plan within the Kendall MXD which effectively approves this building's height and FAR, etc, as proposed. Again, if I'm interpreting correctly, it's not an approval of the building design itself, but is effectively an approval of the site plan and building parameters. Others who know more about how to interpret this, please correct me.

 
^The just-released CDD memo appears to confirm my interpretation (i.e., site plan & primary parameters including height are approved; building design specifics still under review). A heavy sigh regarding many of their (copious) feedback items (though others are quite thoughtful):

The aB crowd will love this one re: the proposed crown lighting (p. 9):
To reduce the building’s dark sky impacts, its visibility from Cambridge’s residential neighborhoods, and its interference with bird migration routes, consideration should be given to eliminating lighting above the building’s first and second floors, or at least to minimizing its brightness, limiting its hours of illumination, and avoiding its use entirely during peak migration periods.
Click to expand...
​
For those keeping score at home, no, Cambridge still hasn't looked in the mirror to recognize that it is in fact a city
 
bigpicture7 said:
^The just-released CDD memo appears to confirm my interpretation (i.e., site plan & primary parameters including height are approved; building design specifics still under review). A heavy sigh regarding many of their (copious) feedback items (though others are quite thoughtful):

The aB crowd will love this one re: the proposed crown lighting (p. 9):
​
​
For those keeping score at home, no, Cambridge still hasn't looked in the mirror to recognize that it is in fact a city
Click to expand...

Their design review meeting is next Tuesday night.
 
bigpicture7 said:
.......To reduce the building’s dark sky impacts, its visibility from Cambridge’s residential neighborhoods, and its interference with bird migration routes, consideration should be given to eliminating lighting above the building’s first and second floors, or at least to minimizing its brightness, limiting its hours of illumination, and avoiding its use entirely during peak migration periods.
​
For those keeping score at home, no, Cambridge still hasn't looked in the mirror to recognize that it is in fact a city
Click to expand...

Perhaps if every human just stopped breathing, it would save more oxygen for the planet?
 
shmessy said:
Perhaps if every human just stopped breathing, it would save more oxygen for the planet?
Click to expand...
Really, we should abandon completely our modern civilization, and while we're at it, completely wipe out human beings from the face of the planet. Then we'll have a really pristine and pure environment.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Someone *should* think of the birds. Not exactly a joke- https://www.archpaper.com/2022/01/why-do-glassy-towers-keep-killing-so-many-birds/
Click to expand...

Correct, and within reason. But that's not what the report is saying. For instance, does "...eliminating lighting above the first and second floors" mean that all residents need to keep their lights off and shades drawn at all times? Logic would suggest yes. But the design documentation itself presents a thoughtful low-intensity accent lighting scheme (the low-intensity design is emphasized). My guess is that the illumination power of that is actual less than if upper floor residents have their lights on. These designers seem already aware that buildings must be designed in harmony with their context and ecosystem. The report is Cambridge being Cambridge. It's not going to save any more birds, and the real reason ("visibility from Cambridge's residential neighborhoods") is buried amidst the bird talk.
 
Yes, think of the birds not the pretty lights. Cambridge may be full of crap but we do have bald eagles on the Charles. Something to consider when designing buildings.
 
An episode of the podcast 99% Invisible aired just last week about the consideration of bird strikes in architecture: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/99-invisible/id394775318?i=1000556348774

To summarize, there are some effective design considerations that can be made that can almost eliminate the problem. I don’t think that means no accent lighting, it just might warrant bird safe glass.
 
Quoting from this article:
audubonportland.org

Birds and Windows - Portland Audubon

audubonportland.org audubonportland.org
.

"Up to one billion birds die each year in the United States due to collisions with windows."

So windows kill upwards of a BILLION birds annually, just in our country alone! I understand using different glass if it isn't cost prohibitive or a noticeable aesthetic downgrade. However, setting public policy in a city just to save a few extra birds a year feels like a futile/useless gesture. What's next, reconfiguring sidewalks and roads to save more ants?
 
Suffolk 83 said:
What entails bird safe glass?
Click to expand...
It has either an etching or coating pattern to so that it is not perfectly reflective or see through.
73380BB2-F9ED-4656-9324-7F0D34A13E3F.jpeg
 
DZH22 said:
Quoting from this article:
audubonportland.org

Birds and Windows - Portland Audubon

audubonportland.org audubonportland.org
.

However, setting public policy in a city just to save a few extra birds a year feels like a futile/useless gesture.
Click to expand...
Referencing this article: https://www.businessinsider.com/bird-safe-glass-windows-arnold-glas-ornilux-2020-7
”the city's Javits Center, which was renovated with bird-safe glass in 2015, and has now reduced collisions by 90%.”

It’s not saving “a few extra birds a year”, it’s nearly eliminating the problem at little additional cost to new construction.
 
Thanks @Badusername for this info. But the thing is, the CDD memo isn't even complaining about the window glass (which I agree might be prudent to consider). They're complaining about the accent lighting, which, according to the design documentation, is dim yellow-tinted vertical striping. I'm not sure we even know that birds want to crash into that? And even so, it's usually window glass that's cited in most of the literature I've seen on bird deaths. How do we know that the accent lighting isn't actually a bird deterrent in this case. My beef is that I think they intentionally commingled a potentially unrelated bird safety consideration with (human) neighbors not wanting to see this thing.
 
This is the same city and neighborhood that flipped out over the crown lighting on the Zinc Apartments.
 
bigpicture7 said:
My beef is that I think they intentionally commingled a potentially unrelated bird safety consideration with (human) neighbors not wanting to see this thing.
Click to expand...
I agree, I’m sure that is what they’re doing. I was just making the point that bird safe design probably should be a consideration in new projects. Everything I’ve seen points to the glass being the problem rather than accent lighting, so it’s not a justification to remove it.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Thanks @Badusername for this info. But the thing is, the CDD memo isn't even complaining about the window glass (which I agree might be prudent to consider). They're complaining about the accent lighting, which, according to the design documentation, is dim yellow-tinted vertical striping. I'm not sure we even know that birds want to crash into that? And even so, it's usually window glass that's cited in most of the literature I've seen on bird deaths. How do we know that the accent lighting isn't actually a bird deterrent in this case. My beef is that I think they intentionally commingled a potentially unrelated bird safety consideration with (human) neighbors not wanting to see this thing.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly whats going on.
 
However. It should be mentioned that light pollution is a thing that cannot be just dismissed out of hand. Remember the Seinfeld episode?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top