archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Development Projects

Development Projects New urban and/or architectural developments in Boston metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-17-2018, 08:07 PM   #101
34f34f
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 176
Re: Parcel JK | NorthPoint | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeamusMcFly View Post
Of course the original zoning changes for this development go back a decade to when things weren't quite the way they are around here. Minds have changed a lot in the intervening years, but to make any major mods to the accepted zoning would most likely have delayed much of what is going on over there.

It's easy to look at this with 2018 glasses on, but one must recall the climate 10 years ago. Or 12 plus years in the case of this site.
And if any of the residential plans change (at all), they would be subject to the most recently enacted affordable housing rate instead of what existed at approvalóso an increase to 20% from the approved 11.5%. Big change.

http://www.cambridgeday.com/2017/03/...d-20-citywide/
34f34f is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2018, 09:39 PM   #102
BeeLine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,691
Re: Parcel JK | NorthPoint | Cambridge









BeeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2018, 10:08 PM   #103
BeeLine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,691
Re: Parcel JK | NorthPoint | Cambridge







BeeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2018, 05:33 PM   #104
BeeLine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,691
Re: Parcel JK | NorthPoint | Cambridge

A lot of infrastructure (roads and sidewalks) and landscaping work in progress.










Last edited by BeeLine; 11-04-2018 at 07:18 PM.
BeeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2018, 08:28 PM   #105
BeeLine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,691
Re: Parcel JK | NorthPoint | Cambridge













BeeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 02:30 PM   #106
BeeLine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,691
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

BeeLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 09:28 PM   #107
FK4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,077
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Sigh. Glass is better, but this is just another squat blob like the prison next door. I donít know why they couldnít have had taller heights and smaller plots.
FK4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2019, 10:58 PM   #108
ivyhedge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CX
Posts: 323
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by FK4 View Post
Sigh. Glass is better, but this is just another squat blob like the prison next door. I donít know why they couldnít have had taller heights and smaller plots.
JK was consolidated from Lots J & K for Philips. It was originally to have been two lots, like G & H, with spec buildings.

What we now know, but what wasnít public then, was that the current form was guided by the ultimate tenant...something like what happened at Causeway. So while you might have wanted smaller parcels with taller buildings, Philips didnít. What we heard is that Sanofi Aventis wants large floorplates, but not tall buildings, too. As I wrote many moons ago, while the FAA has limited height restrictions here, the parcels are not, and never were, zoned for more than 260-ish.
ivyhedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 12:23 AM   #109
rjacobs
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 58
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Thanks for the helpful clarification.
rjacobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 06:01 AM   #110
stellarfun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: salem ma and washington dc
Posts: 4,521
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivyhedge View Post
JK was consolidated from Lots J & K for Philips. It was originally to have been two lots, like G & H, with spec buildings.

What we now know, but what wasnít public then, was that the current form was guided by the ultimate tenant...something like what happened at Causeway. So while you might have wanted smaller parcels with taller buildings, Philips didnít. What we heard is that Sanofi Aventis wants large floorplates, but not tall buildings, too. As I wrote many moons ago, while the FAA has limited height restrictions here, the parcels are not, and never were, zoned for more than 260-ish.
^^^^
This.

Its like if you're buying a new house, and you tell the builder you want three bathrooms, and he tells you I am only giving you 1.5 bathrooms. Do you buy the house?
__________________
A man gazing on the stars is at the mercy of the puddles in the road
stellarfun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 06:09 AM   #111
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,830
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

The residential towers are the ones that should be substantially taller. The demand is there and so is the opportunity.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 10:53 AM   #112
Gameguy326
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 225
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
The residential towers are the ones that should be substantially taller. The demand is there and so is the opportunity.
This. I seriously don't understand why we don't increase zoning here, especially since we're already poised to break 400 feet in Kendall.
Gameguy326 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 11:26 AM   #113
Brad Plaid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 859
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Activist dogma and weak politicians who don't challenge their extremism have a strong impact on development in Cambridge, sense and logic are rejected and replaced by "feelings". Wasn't there a 1 or 2 year activist-led development moratorium imposed city-wide stopping all new construction not that long ago? (surely a brilliant response to a severe housing shortage!)
There is no logic-based reasoning preventing taller, denser housing here there is only the loud ignorance of ideology. Things are getting better, but it's glacial.
Brad Plaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 11:30 AM   #114
Gameguy326
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 225
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Plaid View Post
Activist dogma and weak politicians who don't challenge their extremism have a strong impact on development in Cambridge, sense and logic are rejected and replaced by "feelings". Wasn't there a 1 or 2 year activist-led development moratorium imposed city-wide stopping all new construction not that long ago? (surely a brilliant response to a severe housing shortage!)
There is no logic-based reasoning preventing taller, denser housing here there is only the loud ignorance of ideology. Things are getting better, but it's glacial.
Complete development moratorium?? I've been living here for 6 years and there has been no moratorium in that time.
Gameguy326 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 01:06 PM   #115
Ruairi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 235
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Plaid View Post
Activist dogma and weak politicians who don't challenge their extremism have a strong impact on development in Cambridge, sense and logic are rejected and replaced by "feelings". Wasn't there a 1 or 2 year activist-led development moratorium imposed city-wide stopping all new construction not that long ago? (surely a brilliant response to a severe housing shortage!)
There is no logic-based reasoning preventing taller, denser housing here there is only the loud ignorance of ideology. Things are getting better, but it's glacial.
I would imagine the types of buildings that get built here is dictated mostly by the private sector. It's probably cheaper to build lower fatter buildings. It's probably more practical from a usability point of view to have larger lower floors. The height might also be affected by the workings of the lab space. All in all, the main reason to build tall here is aesthetic, and that's not what makes them money.
Ruairi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 01:11 PM   #116
Brad Plaid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 859
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gameguy326 View Post
Complete development moratorium?? I've been living here for 6 years and there has been no moratorium in that time.
Doing a quick search I came up with this reference and will have to backtrack:

"Relative to the Jack Prescott Loose, et al Petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance by implementing an 18 month building moratorium for the area bordered by Memorial Drive, DeWolfe Street, Mount Auburn Street, Putnam Avenue and River Street. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after September 25, 2000." (page 2, http://www.rwinters.com/council/101600.pdf)

It was 2000 and the city council approved an 18 month moratorium for a stretch of the Charles between River St and Mt Auburn St. So it wasn't anything close to city-wide but it was activist-driven and agreed to by the council. A moratorium is the nuclear option for dealing with development issues and a sad case of kicking the can down the road by the council.
Brad Plaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 01:23 PM   #117
Brad Plaid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 859
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I would imagine the types of buildings that get built here is dictated mostly by the private sector. It's probably cheaper to build lower fatter buildings. It's probably more practical from a usability point of view to have larger lower floors. The height might also be affected by the workings of the lab space. All in all, the main reason to build tall here is aesthetic, and that's not what makes them money.
Wasn't necessarily referring to the labs/offices. The residential certainly could have been taller but there wasn't enough political courage to push back against activists and do a reasonable upzoning. If maximum heights are restricted by zoning why not also zoning for height minimums, say 300' or 350" here for residential?
Brad Plaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2019, 01:26 PM   #118
JumboBuc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The Fenway
Posts: 1,847
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruairi View Post
I would imagine the types of buildings that get built here is dictated mostly by the private sector. It's probably cheaper to build lower fatter buildings. It's probably more practical from a usability point of view to have larger lower floors. The height might also be affected by the workings of the lab space. All in all, the main reason to build tall here is aesthetic, and that's not what makes them money.
We've been over this like 500 times, but height here is capped by regulation, full stop. Especially for office and residential, developers in this market are clamoring to build as tall and dense as they can. It is pretty much a 100% certainty that profit seeking developers would build significantly taller here if allowed by the powers-that-be.
JumboBuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 08:53 AM   #119
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brockton
Posts: 1,971
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by stellarfun View Post
^^^^
This.

Its like if you're buying a new house, and you tell the builder you want three bathrooms, and he tells you I am only giving you 1.5 bathrooms. Do you buy the house?
Except it's not true here at all.
J/K was combined from two lots, but that had nothing to do with Philips. The larger building was designed as a lab building, and was being built as such before Philips was even on board. It got changed after the fact to be an office building. They probably could have squeezed in another floor for office with lower F2F. Or just built it shorter for lab (like H is shorter than G). The penthouse would be much smaller if built for office which would have saved Divco big bucks as well.

Similarly with Sanofi. Sanofi had nothing to do with the original design of the buildings it's taking. That's why their changes to the base buildings (outside of their fit-out scope) will be forthcoming as well.

The designs have these types of companies in mind, but they are not guaranteed. They build to land those fish, but they also design them to allow for multiple smaller tenants. The zoning was in place before Divco bought the site, though it has been massaged since. However, the fact still remains like the top of this page reminds us, this development was zoned during a very different time. This was during the biggest downturn of our lives when prospects were not what they are now.

If zoned 5 or 7 years later, I think the zoning would allow for higher and greater density. We've seen that the climate and even the residents have become more accepting of this. Mostly because we're seeing success with upzoning and higher density, and the sky hasn't fallen.

But, if this was approved as a site 5 or 7 years later, it might have missed this development cycle. So, it will be much better to get what we're getting vs. possibly nothing or waiting another decade for a cycle with even higher construction costs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRifleman View Post
You can have fun anywhere---Fun shouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime.
SeamusMcFly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 09:18 AM   #120
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,830
Re: Parcel JK | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeamusMcFly View Post
If zoned 5 or 7 years later, I think the zoning would allow for higher and greater density. We've seen that the climate and even the residents have become more accepting of this. Mostly because we're seeing success with upzoning and higher density, and the sky hasn't fallen.

But, if this was approved as a site 5 or 7 years later, it might have missed this development cycle. So, it will be much better to get what we're getting vs. possibly nothing or waiting another decade for a cycle with even higher construction costs.
So why not rezone the rest of it now and revise (upwards) the remaining residentials? There are plenty of parcels remaining and the demand to go bigger, especially with the ongoing housing crunch.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cambridge Crossing (NorthPoint) | East Cambridge/Charlestown | Cambridge/Boston awood91 Development Projects 1157 03-08-2019 07:32 PM
Mission Hill Parcel 25 | Tremont St @ Roxbury Crossing quadratdackel Development Projects 137 03-06-2019 03:38 PM
Parcel EF | Cambridge Crossing | Cambridge FitchburgLine Development Projects 11 11-05-2018 09:44 AM
Parcel I | Cambridge Crossing | East Cambridge datadyne007 Development Projects 50 10-19-2018 03:46 PM
West Cambridge (Alewife, Acorn Park, Cambridge Park, Fresh Pond) BostonUrbEx Development Projects 244 08-24-2018 08:43 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.