Third Square | 303 Third Street | Cambridge - Kendall Sq

[DudeUrSistersHot]

I don't see why you'd want it to be taller.

You are the most irritating person I've ever met.

Taller = better use of Boston's limited space, more prominent, more urban, more office space for economic exapansion

 

[PerfectHandle]

Dude...chiiiilll.

 

[LeTaureau]

I don't see why you'd want it to be taller.

You are the most irritating person I've ever met.

Taller = better use of Boston's limited space, more prominent, more urban, more office space for economic exapansion

Taller does not mean more urban, nor does it necessarily mean better economics. A building's intrinsic values are not solely judged by its height. Like others in this board, I am more interested in what will occur at the ground level. Kendall square is vapid, it needs more developments like this. Screw height.

 

[ablarc]

Taller does not mean more urban, nor does it necessarily mean better economics. A building's intrinsic values are not solely judged by its height. Like others in this board, I am more interested in what will occur at the ground level. Kendall square is vapid, it needs more developments like this. Screw height.

Yes, and it would be even better if it were taller. Kendall Square is composed of wallowing hippos.

 

[castevens]

Tall Kendall Square buildings tend to catch fire. Let's stick with the short ones.

 

[kz1000ps]

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I was flipping through the "New York Luxury Living" magazine the other day and they had an article about how luxury living is spreading all over the world and they used this as an example from Boston.

 

[ablarc]

^ LOL.

Or am I overlooking smething?

 

[kz1000ps]

Walked by here last night.. roughly half to two thirds of the site has been excavated down two levels.

 

[kz1000ps]

 

[kz1000ps]

This site is HUGE

 

[ablarc]

This site is HUGE

That's the problem generally with Kendall Square. It's the zone of gigantism. Makes for lousy urbanism and a terrible pedestrian environment. They should limit the SIZE of lots that can be developed at once, but let them build TALL!

 

[kz1000ps]

^ To use your words, Ablarc, Kendall Square is a classic example of "density without urbanity." I can't wait for the Volpe Trans. complex to e sold off and redeveloped (I know.. don't hold your breath over that one)

 

[Ron Newman]

This site is HUGE

That's the problem generally with Kendall Square. It's the zone of gigantism. Makes for lousy urbanism and a terrible pedestrian environment.

The legacy of landfill originally developed for industrial purposes, which at the time required such gigantism.

 

[ablarc]

^ Lots can be ubdivided.

 

[a630]

But site assembly is usually the challenge in cities. Cambridge is lucky in many ways to have inherited this area.

 

[TheBostonBoy]

From what everyone was arguing about in the second page of the thread, I think that height is important, something that Boston could use a little more of

 

[econ_tim]

By 'suburban' I mean it is short and squat, relative to it's neighbors. It doesn't 'fit' in to the neighborhood. I suppose it builds up a nice street wall though.

You could argue that the building's neighbors don't fit into Cambridge. I like the scale of this project much better than the Landmark across the street.

 

[econ_tim]

two cranes up on the site

looks like a ramp for the underground parking

 

[kennedy]

From the second page:

I don't care if it's tall.
I don't care what's on the ground floor.
I don't care that it's brick.

Want to know what I care about (not that you have a choice)?

I care that it's a terribly ugly building, and a huge waste of space. This is the exact type of project built in the sixties and seventies that ruined Boston for us now. My apologies, archBostoners of 2045.