Volpe Transportation Center Development | Kendall Sq | Cambridge

Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

Mongo said:
I was under the impression that because the Volpe is federal land they aren't subject to zoning anyway, and that the GSA is complying with Cambridge's zoning as a courtesy, not because they are legally required to.
Click to expand...

On their building, yes. On whatever their selected developer will put up on the former site, no. They're selling the site, so the new development will not be exempt, I believe.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

Equilibria said:
On their building, yes. On whatever their selected developer will put up on the former site, no. They're selling the site, so the new development will not be exempt, I believe.
Click to expand...

More importantly, the Volpe's new owner is also demolishing the Feds' building, so the new developer is just like any other builder starting with an empty parcel who must conform to zoning.

Meanwhile, the Feds take their immunity from zoning with them (but ,yes, they usually conform out of courtesy)

Had the Volpe's Edward Durrel Stone building been huge and non-conforming, you might have seen the new owner trying to keep it (it was worth it for the redeveloper of the East Cambridge court house to re-skin their non-conforming former courthouse that the State had built with immunity from Cambridge Zoning). As it was, the problem with the Volpe was that it was under-dense.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

Just shows you how short-sighted Boston has been: Looks like Cambridge Mass is the economic engine for Massachusetts.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

As Arlington indicates, the Federal government will retain ownership of about four acres (zero acres if a developer finds a site for Volpe elsewhere). Retaining Federal ownership means that part of the 14 acres on which new Volpe is sited is not subject to local zoning. Cambridge is not counting the approximately 400,000 gsf replacement building for Volpe in its gsf allowances for the entire site.

The developer(s) has to incur the total cost of building a new Volpe, as consideration for obtaining ownership of about ten acres of former government land.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

Why not have the developer build what it wants under contract from the GSA so it is zoning exempt? After construction is complete, the GSA can transfer ownership to the developer and it would be a grandfathered non-conforming use. Part of the development is for the federal government, so its not that far-fetched.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

TallIsGood said:
Why not have the developer build what it wants under contract from the GSA so it is zoning exempt? After construction is complete, the GSA can transfer ownership to the developer and it would be a grandfathered non-conforming use. Part of the development is for the federal government, so its not that far-fetched.
Click to expand...

GSA would tell you that its not in the development business.

And if it were in the development business, it would seek the highest possible return to the government, which likely would be commercial and lab space at a high density.

Putting aside TVA, and some of the power administrations, the only Federal agency that I know of that is in the development business (of the type you would envision for Kendall Square) is the Presidio Trust in San Francisco.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2015/06...g-releases-3-d-models-of-visions-for-kendall/

Anyone catch this? Images for some of the proposals that apparently the city originally didn't want to show. Looks a lot like the Hancock tower from afar, though why on earth is there no setback on Broadway and Third?

062715i-cdd-A4.png

062715i-cdd-FF4.jpg


I really like this setup;

062715i-cdd-A1.png

062715i-cdd-FF1.jpg


Note how they expand that same intersection where they put the 1,000 footer in the other render to give some public space. I feel like this works because it's probably the most visible and busy intersection in Kendall, being right at the foot of the Longfellow it's kind of a gateway to Cambridge. It also connects nicely the Main Street. Perfect place for a neighborhood center they so desperately want here.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

First layout is an awful waste of space to achieve a tall building, that you're right, cannot be right at the corner like that. Unfortunate there is a cap on GSF on the site that doesn't allow for height plus full build be reasonable open space. Way too much open space in this layout.

Layout two is much better. I guessed at 9 new buildings, and this shows 8. Good density, like the varying heights, and creates a good little cluster and mini-peak in the across the river shot.

Love to see something resembling the second layout happen here. Increases connectivity throughout this whole dead space, merges 3rd Square in, and helps create a real neighborhood (hopefully).
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

SeamusMcFly said:
First layout is an awful waste of space to achieve a tall building, that you're right, cannot be right at the corner like that. Unfortunate there is a cap on GSF on the site that doesn't allow for height plus full build be reasonable open space. Way too much open space in this layout.

Layout two is much better. I guessed at 9 new buildings, and this shows 8. Good density, like the varying heights, and creates a good little cluster and mini-peak in the across the river shot.

Love to see something resembling the second layout happen here. Increases connectivity throughout this whole dead space, merges 3rd Square in, and helps create a real neighborhood (hopefully).
Click to expand...

Seamus -- there is one and only one opportunity for a true tower in Cambridge which will be visible from Logan and highways approaching Boston from the South -- that's the 1000 footer

Anything else is a waste of space -- Cambridge needs to advertise itself to the world and the Volpe Tower is the opportunity -- it should not be squandered -- all of the rules can bend
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

Yes, because the home of the two top universities in world needs a giant phallus to draw attention to itself.

(I'm not opposed to a tall tower in Cambridge, but that's an absurd argument for one.)
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

Here's a link to the latest briefing memo from city planning staff to the city council.

http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/...5/PUDKS/zngamend_pudks_cddreport_20150624.pdf

The memo underscores the need for having zoning allow sufficient development that a developer is willing to build the government a new 400,000 sq ft building at no cost to the government. If no developer is so willing, then there is no re-development of Volpe. Simple as that.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

^From the pdf:
The 2001 ECaPS study recommended the creation of public open space on the Volpe site, which is still a goal of the proposed zoning. However, the current zoning requirement for a 7.5‐acre park on the 14‐acre site is very inflexible and makes the envisioned redevelopment much less feasible. If the redevelopment cannot proceed then the desired open space will not come to fruition.
The current proposal would require a minimum of 25% of the site to be public open space, still the highest open space requirement for any redevelopment area and comparable to the open space ratio achieved in large projects such as North Point and Alexandria. Open space in a large project typically exceeds the minimum requirement, but flexibility is required to achieve the right urban design balance.

Cambridge planning priority too often: grass good, buildings bad. The above is a rare, much needed rebuke of open space obsessiveness in general and Volpe in particular. A Charles River Park or Northpoint type suburb here is beyond ludicrous.
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

So is the requirement the 7.5-acre (53%) open space or the 3.5-acre (25%) open space?
 
Re: Volpe Transportation Center Development Cambridge

timsox6 said:
So is the requirement the 7.5-acre (53%) open space or the 3.5-acre (25%) open space?
Click to expand...
14 acres minus four acres that the Feds will continue to own, = 10 acres. 25 percent of 10 acres for open space is 2.5 acres. Non-government buildable area is 7.5 acres.
 
Cambridge City Councillor Nadeem Mazen talks about the City Ordinance Committee Meeting of Monday, June 29th, which was held jointly with the planning board and revolved around the Volpe site and its future in terms of community benefit & development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9ALymrrn58
 
Very very well spoken! It takes a talent to speak off the cuff like he seemed to have been doing!
 
atlantaden said:
Very very well spoken! It takes a talent to speak off the cuff like he seemed to have been doing!
Click to expand...

I guarantee that was just as scripted as the OK Go music video he directed. He's a professional filmmaker. He doesn't mess around.
 
I invited Nadeem here via comment in his Reddit thread in hopes of him engaging in dialogue about this with us. Let's see if he bites.
 
To correct the councilor in his opening riff, the Volpe Center is a part of the Federal Department of Transportation, and all (or nearly all) of the activity at Volpe is funded through an appropriation of monies by Congress to the Department of Transportation (and any other Federal agency that would contract for work done by Volpe).

I assume the $400 million cost of a replacement building was discussed at the meeting, and he is not pulling that number out of the air.

The more the councilor pushes to increase the amount of open space, and the more he seeks to increase the amount of affordable housing, the greater the likelihood that, with a $400 million replacement building, there will be no developer who can make the numbers work.

At 6.6 buildable acres (33 percent open space), and $400 million new Volpe cost, the developer is, in effect, paying $61 million an acre. You don't make money building lots of affordable housing on land that costs $61 million an acre. And if one even tried to, the building would look like a complete POS. Samuels' building at Barry's Corner would look like the Taj Mahal in comparison.

Also, the Federal government holds nearly all the cards. They do not need to sell Volpe, and they won't sell unless the developer gives them a new building that doesn't cost them a cent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top