Novartis Campus | 181-211 Mass Ave, 22 Windsor Street | Kendall Square | Cambridge

^ Forgive my ignorance of geological jargon, but does that explain why you can build tall in the Back Bay fill and not in Cambridge fill?
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ Forgive my ignorance of geological jargon, but does that explain why you can build tall in the Back Bay fill and not in Cambridge fill?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of buildings in the Back Bay that rest on pilings, including Trinity Church. Trinity rests on 4000 wood pilings that must be kept wet. When constructing the Hancock, they unintentionally de-watered the Trinity pilings, and the pilings now exposed to air began deteriorating.

See also.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37467/123899168.pdf

Its not that the geology of east Cambridge prohibits one from building tall, the added height becomes a tradeoff between the additional cost of building something tall given the underlying geology,.and whether one is able to capture those additional costs from rents.

An additional complicating factor are the revised building codes to account for the extent and potential severity of seismic activity in a particular area.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/

And filled land tends to be subject to liquefaction.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/qmap/
.
 
So much like all new buildings in the Back Bay, East Cambridge would need to include groundwater recharge systems?
 
SeamusMcFly said:
So much like all new buildings in the Back Bay, East Cambridge would need to include groundwater recharge systems?
Click to expand...
No. Unless new buildings are built on wooden pilings.

Another complication when one excavates a site below sea level is hydrostatic pressure. I know of a modern building with a multi-level underground parking garage, where if the adjacent river gets into serious flood stage, the building owners flood the lowest level of the garage with domestic water to offset the hydrostatic pressure. The garage was designed to be flooded, so mechanicals and electricals are kept away from that floor to the extent possible, and utility closets sealed etc.
 
stellarfun said:
No. Unless new buildings are built on wooden pilings.

Another complication when one excavates a site below sea level is hydrostatic pressure. I know of a modern building with a multi-level underground parking garage, where if the adjacent river gets into serious flood stage, the building owners flood the lowest level of the garage with domestic water to offset the hydrostatic pressure. The garage was designed to be flooded, so mechanicals and electricals are kept away from that floor to the extent possible, and utility closets sealed etc.
Click to expand...

I know, sorry. It was just in response to the pilings being brought up. That doesn't really have much to do with the modern issue of building tall in Cambridge.

As for below grade over here, that they have figured out pretty well also. Most new buildings are going down 3-4 levels it would seem, for on site parking, and mechanicals, or even optics labs or other labs that want great sound insulation, or RF isolation, etc. The height precedent has already been set around here by the Eastgate Tower, One Broadway, the Marriott, The Green Tower. If you can build 300 feet or so, then it stands too reason 400-600 would not be that difficult or costly by comparison. 1,000, meh I just don't see it, or crave it here at present. Unless, MIT did a 180 on designing and building (not so attractive) structures, and decided to top UPitt with a new highest academic building to feel good, stand out, and puff their chests. But, that's not their MO, and the are happy with a dome as their image.

A handful or more of 300-600 foot buildings in and around the Kendall area, would do wonders from outside looking in, and from the inside out.
 
While I agree with general sentiment here, as far as I know there's an apartment building fully permitted on Ames St and a bunch of other buildings fully permitted in North Point area (besides 2 under construction) - and there's no sign that developers are rushing to start on those. I think that while rents are up a number of developers(and their financial backers) are starting to worry about oversupply already, so I don't think there's going to be 500' in Kendall anytime soon.
My cousin was looking to rent in Cambridge last month (decided on Watertown due to prices) and said there's a lot of availability in higher end developments.
I wish I had more than anecdotal evidence, but can't seem to find anything about recent occupancy levels at, say, Watermark 2.
 
Here's what I struggle with: Lots of new construction going on in the Boston area is asking for very expensive rents. Many of them are filling fast, some are not. Developers and financiers become concerned that there's a glut when developments don't fill up quick. So it's not a safe investment to keep building developments that call for high rents to make up for the costs. At the same time, these new apartments are not causing rents within existing housing stock to flatline or decrease, everything is still going up. So there are a fair number of new buildings leasing at high prices, and all of the existing housing stock that is continuing to rise in cost. Developers are getting warier about new projects already because they aren't guaranteed a good ROI. If developers won't keep building due to a lack of demand, and apartment prices keep rising due to high demand, what gives? How can we solve the housing problem if there aren't enough wealthy people to keep renting all these luxury apartments?
 
To me the answer is to build less luxury residential, and more residential that middle income people can afford. This is tough for developers to swallow because development costs are so high that sometimes only luxury prices will allow them to see some ROI. I'm not sure what the answer is for lowering development costs, perhaps building taller means lowering development cost per unit?
 
That's one part of it. The glass ceiling hit on developments decreases the amount of ROI. If you can go taller, and build 20% more units at a 10% increase in construction costs, you could conceivable rent for cheaper, and still make your ROI. Now if you can build 30% more at 15% more costs, and so on and so forth.

There are other ways to cut into those costs, but some of them ain't happening anytime soon in Boston especially with Mayor Walsh in office.
 
aaaaaa said:
Boston already has reasonably low labor costs (despite people who shout about unions),.....
Click to expand...

Not to get waaay off track, but really? I try not to shout too much, but I will on occasion. But all info I have found, put labor costs in New England as the second highest in the country behind only the Mid Atlantic. The cost of construction in Boston typically only trails NYC and SF if I recall correctly.

The red tape stuff is also very true, but with New England being the second most expensive labor, and Boston being the most expensive in New England, I just don't get that statement.
 
aaaaaa said:
Or, we could just build a lot of super dense public housing like in Singapore. :)
Click to expand...

As much as this seems like a joke I don't see a long term solution without government stepping in way more than it currently does, probably in the form of more private/public partnerships (such as CDC's). The housing situation reminds me a lot of the health care crisis, which is trending toward more government involvement. At some point people are going to have to realize that while free market capitalism is great at certain things it's awful at others, namely providing critical services on a mass scale that people have no choice but to pay for. There is simply no incentive to cover up inefficiencies, because people are going to have to pay for your product no matter what.

Of course how government will be able to pay for new housing is a whole separate issue, and probably the biggest challenge in all this.
 
aaaaaa said:
You're right. So I guess what I should have said is that labor costs do not make a huge difference in total cost of construction. In an interview with Radio Boston, Edward Glaeser stated that, "no more than a fifth can be attributed to differences in labor costs."
Click to expand...

20% is a lot.

If NE's labor costs are 15% higher than average areas around the country, that is an extra 3% to a developer's cost (or 3 times the "do or die" percentage of the tax break John Rosenthal held his breath for for his Fenway Center development).
 
It's not necessarily the cost that is the issue per se, so much as the fact that NE developments must compete (inter)nationally for financing, meaning that yields/rates-of-return must be either financially competitive or the investments must be so surefire that investments funds use them to offset riskier investments in order to attract the investment dollars necessary to finance the projects.
 
I'm sure it's way back in the thread somewhere.... but, what is going in at grade on these things?

Retail? How much? How little?

I'm loving this thing from an it's interesting standpoint, and the changes in elevation and shapes throughout, but if blank street walls or 100% lab/office, I'm going to hate this block.
 
I don't think any retail, but I'm not sure.
The courtyard is supposed to be open to all (hours TBD)
 
That's better than a courtyard that would probably be made to look exclusive like most are. Public land designed to keep people out.

Some retail is better than none, just too bad not a bit more with the amount of building face being created.
 
14138949418_0b0911624f_b.jpg


14325564985_497f06cdb4_b.jpg


14345722533_5a4e66922c_b.jpg


14325543645_03c69c4f31_b.jpg


14138984447_0efba9c3e3_b.jpg


14325470105_ceb2e4dd62_b.jpg


14345628333_8e1231d3b8_b.jpg


14138879417_98201f4afa_b.jpg


14138733118_df5ca7a018_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top