the architect’s role in designing the
MACRO and the MICRO the sierra building
northpoint master plan
A B
C
D
E
F
I J
K
G L
Q
H
M N R
V
S T U
the architect’s role in designing the
MACRO and the MICRO northpoint master plan
Copyright Š 2009 by Northeastern University School of Architecture All rights reserved First printing April 2009 Published by Northeastern University School of Architecture 360 Huntington Ave Boston, Massachusetts 02115 No part of this publication may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 or the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission from the authors. Unless specifically stated otherwise all content is property of the authors. Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify owners of copyright, photographs, diagrams and images. Errors or omissions with be corrected in subsequent editions.
the sierra building
5 CBT Case Study
a case study in the architect’s role in designing the macro and the micro through team integration, coordination, and organization
by cavin costello and elizabeth utz
CBT Case Study 6
7 CBT Case Study
abstract Attention to detail is imperative for the success of a project, since it is the accumulation of details that make up a whole. On the other hand, attention to the overall vision of a project can help attain projected goals on time and accurately by understanding how to arrange the details. Many times people lose site of either the big picture or small picture when working on one or the other. An architect has the ability to coordinate between the macro scale and the micro scale while integrating the organization of them throughout the process of a project. The ability to simultaneously design at both the micro and macro level enables a foundation for better technique in the planning process, which can lead to more successful and sustainable results. Planning is not limited to the built environment; it also affects policies and funding, regional transportation, relationships, and societal and cultural issues. However, it is ultimately about the physical environment and including architects may reduce the possibility of the master plan consisting of only numbers and terms like “mixed use development.� What does mixed use development mean in plan? What do these numbers really mean? Planners are often concerned with the pretty picture, and may lack rigorous thought on the constructability of the parcels being defined. These ideas can benefit from an architect’s attention to detail by being tested physically. Parcel testing is analyzing each parcel with different combinations of program in order to discover the best solutions. In doing this, the planner learns how each building can play off of each other, which creates flexibility. This flexibility in macro design allows for adaptation to the physical, social, and economic changes that occur during the typically long execution phase. Opportunities that are unavailable in loose plans may be revealed during this testing process, one of which may be a diversity of architectural expression. Diversity of architectural expression may be best pioneered by the architect involved in the master plan, since they are responsible for the vision of the project. It could also benefit future firms as a physical experiment of the written rules, providing a measuring stick for any future design, and setting the aesthetic tone of the development. Architects often contribute a practical reality to the physical implementation of a master plan. Although architects are also trained in abstract thought, it is their tectonic expertise that is imperative to the success of both designing the macro and the micro. Is the solution for a successful master plan to include architects in both the macro and the micro?
CBT Case Study 0
1 CBT Case Study
Table of Contents
Regarding the Present 3 Setting the Stage 7 Highlighting the Team 15 Creating Team Identity 27 Designing the Master Plan 37 Designing the Building 51 Regarding the Future 65 Sources 69
CBT Case Study 2
Regarding the Present
CBT Case Study
3
Introduction
CBT Case Study 4
a transition, probably a result of its incompatibility with
becoming more rapid.
an evolving city.
Portions of cities become
Architects are recently becoming
outdated as technology improves rendering these areas
involved in the master planning process. They are not
as potential sites for redevelopment. Master plans are
replacing master planners; they are simply joining the
needed because a place is seen as dilapidated. They
team. They may have something indispensable to offer
require a strong promising vision so that the public
to the process.
gains trust in the project. In the past, the process has typically been a top-down approach that is carried out by
Architects are capable of thinking in three dimensions.
developers and politicians who focus on the big picture
This could be beneficial for solving the problem of a bland
and are only interested in that vision or a “pretty picture�
sense of place. They could work with the architecture
for the final product. This product is determined and set
of the buildings and imagine what the experience of a
before any building takes place, creating an inflexible
pedestrian would be. By working with each building, they
and potentially failing process.
could create variety through architectural expression.
Creating spaces that include social networks and
An architect’s ability to multi task could be helpful as
existing communities is the key to a high quality
well. Master plans should be addressing the quality
urban environment. Traditionally master planning has
of the spaces in an integrated way by coordinating the
jeopardized its relation to existing urban settings by
economic, social, environmental, and physical aspects
unintentionally excluding the adjacencies of the site.
of a site. Architects can use their attention to detail on
Spaces tend to be unwelcoming for pedestrians with
each specific issue while simultaneously thinking about
towering buildings and city centers with no variety. This
the big picture. These attributes can prevent the master
bland sense of place exists because most master plans
plan from becoming inflexible and deterministic.
were only considered two dimensionally, lacking what implications the three dimensional buildings will have
Master plans should be guidelines for the process, not
on the spaces. The outcome of this approach ignores
the product. The evolution of a city is a process and
the architecture of the buildings in attempt to create a
cities are constantly changing, so master plans should
unified space. This unfortunately lacks critical elements
as well.
for a successful master plan.
5
as time progresses, and this evolution is seemingly
CBT Case Study
The process of master planning is currently experiencing
Regarding the Present
introduction Cities are constantly evolving and
CBT Case Study 6
Project History
7 CBT Case Study
Site History
Setting the Stage
NorthPoint Complexity
8 CBT Case Study
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
Neighborhood context
MBTA Green Line Lechmere Station
Chapter 91
Existing Retail and Amenities
The NorthPoint proposal included relocating and rebuilding the Lechmere Station stop on the Green Line.
The DEP determined that NorthPoint was not required to obtain a Chapter 91 License because the parcels fit within the definition of landlocked tidelands, but this ruling was brought to court.
The site borders an existing, well developed neighborhood with many amenities and retail such as the Cambridgeside Galleria.
Monsignor O’Brien Highway Monsignor O’Brien Highway, or Route 28, separates NorthPoint from the existing East Cambridge fabric. Rail Yards Rail yards NorthPoint.
border
the
north
edge
of
Community Involvement
Tri-City Area
Permitting
The NorthPoint team dealt with numerous community groups including the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Eastern Cambridge Planning Study Committee, and the Conservation Law Foundation.
The site straddles three cities, Somerville, Boston, and Cambridge, and had to get approval from all three.
NorthPoint is situated on landfill covering the former Millers River.
9
MEPA
CBT Case Study
MUNICIPALITIES
Setting the Stage
COMMUNITIES
CBT Case Study 10
Aerial view of Millers River on the NorthPoint site in 1950
in East Cambridge, bound by Monsignor O’Brien
that flowed through the NorthPoint site until the early
Highway, the Gilmore Bridge, and by the MBTA Green
1960s. Boston & Maine initially filled in the tidelands
Line.
Charlestown, Boston and Somerville are also
in 1870. They later completely filled in the river under
included in the triangular site but at small percentages.
a license issued by the Department of Public Works
The project proposes to expand and improve roadways,
in 1962 to initiate urban expansion with additional
bicycle paths, and sidewalks under the Gilmore Bridge.
railroad use. This license also required that Boston & Maine constructed underground culverts to serve as
In 1640 a statute written in Chapter 91 of the
the drainage process previously carried out naturally by
Massachusetts General Laws may have affected
the river. Maintenance was to be performed on these
the development or redevelopment of property.
It
culverts as well, which did not occur and resulted in a
gave ownership between high tide and low tide to the
clogged and nonfunctional drainage system. After these
upland land owner and was also reserved for the public
results, the Conservation Law Foundation wanted to
to fish, fowl, and to navigate.
restore the river to its natural state, delaying progress
The Commonwealth
took the remainder which encouraged the building of
on the Sierra Building at the time of construction.
wharves, other structures, and the filling of tidelands. This resulted in overcrowded harbors from building
After the initial proposal of the NorthPoint redevelopment
and filling which instigated the creation of the Board
plan by Guilford Transportation Industries, Spaulding and
of Harbor Commissioners in 1866 to oversee harbors,
Slye Colliers was selected to act as their development
tidal flats and tidewaters in the Commonwealth. This
manager for the transformation of the fifty acres of rail
included the approval of plans for the placement of fill or
yard into a residential-commercial neighborhood. During
structures on tidal areas. Licenses were then granted
this time an MBTA Board of Directors vote authorized
for the building of structures and wharves, or the filling
a five acre land swap of the existing Lechmere station
of flats in 1872 by the Board of Harbor Commissioners.
in exchange for a new station and bus terminal and
In 1874 the Legislature began requiring payments to be
an elevated pedestrian walkway over the six lanes of
made to compensate the Commonwealth for the filling of
Monsignor O’Brien Highway to be built by North Point’s
Commonwealth Tidelands. Presently the Department of
developer. The property was given to Spaulding & Slye
Environmental Protection (DEP) is authorized to license
by Boston & Maine in 2001 as a ninety nine year lease
and prescribe the terms. The definition of “tidelands,”
for 39 acres. This included the five acre land swap by
according to Chapter 91, Section 1, include current and
the MBTA in order to build a new Lechmere station.
former submerged lands and tidal flats lying below the mean high watermark. Chapter 91 also states that nonwater dependant projects on Commonwealth Tidelands are required to devote the ground floor of the buildings to public amenities.
CBT Case Study 11
The Millers River used to be part of thirteen tidelands
Setting the Stage
SITE HISTORY The NorthPoint site is primarily located
CBT Case Study 12
2001 NorthPoint Proposal
The
idea
of
building
on
station across the O’Brien Highway, thus giving them
the NorthPoint site began in 1999 when Guilford
the rights to redevelop the existing T site in return. To
Transportation Industries proposed a large residential
improve access to the new neighborhood, the proposal
and commercial project near the Lechmere MBTA
also suggested building a pedestrian bridge over the
station. Timothy Mellon envisioned the development as
highway. The new proposal received a fairly positive
a center for business and residential life that would renew
response that hinged on how closely the developers
a decaying area of Cambridge. David Fink praised the
worked with the neighborhood and the city. The proposal
proposal as a way of “attracting people back into urban
began to move forward with interest from Mayor Anthony
areas.” However, the surprise proposal was perceived
D. Galluccio, Timothy J. Toomey Jr., and Seth Kaplan.
negatively by city official and local residents. An 18 month moratorium was placed on the development by
In June of 2001, the Association of Cambridge
the Cambridge City Council until a review of the effects
Neighborhoods, concerned about the development,
of the new proposal could be completed.
proposed a rebuttal plan with less density and new height restrictions. Stash Horowitz and the late John
In 2001, a new plan was offered.
This new plan
Moot believed that the city proposed density would lead
included the replacing of Farmer & Flier Associates as
to too much traffic in an area already troubled by traffic
developers with Spaulding & Slye Colliers. Farmer &
problems and was too commercial and car friendly.
Flier Associates had been questioned about their partial ownership of a separate firm used by the MBTA to
The rezoning proposal was approved by the East
redevelop and manage other properties, which caused
Cambridge Committee in October of 2001. The new
a conflict of issues. Although they were cleared by the
zoning allowed Guilford Transportation Industries most
Ethics Commission, Guilford Transportation Industries
of the density they wanted but stipulated the new T
decided to part ways with them because of the public
station had to be relocated before the issue of an
controversy.
The new plan included a residential
occupancy permit. It also required the tall buildings to
neighborhood of 5,000 or more people, a hotel, research
border the highway and lower buildings the residential
buildings and offices. A key addition to the new plan was
neighborhoods and a new park as a transition zone
the proposal of moving the Lechmere Green Line MBTA
between NorthPoint and the existing neighborhoods.
CBT Case Study 13
HISTORY
Setting the Stage
PROJECT
CBT Case Study 14
Greenberg Consultants Inc. Childs Bertman Tseckares
CBT Case Study 15
Spaulding & Slye Colliers / Jones Lang LaSalle
Highlighting the Team
Project Players
CBT Case Study 16
DEVELOPERS
DESIGNERS
MARKETERS
Pan Am Railways Owners Formerly Guilford Transportation Industries, Pan Am Railways is a holding company that manages a Class II regional railroad, a mid-sized freight hauling railroad, covering northern New England. They are also referred to as “Boston and Maine,” “Pan American Railways,” “Pan American Systems,” Pan American Airways,” and “Pan American Industries.” CEO: Timothy Mellon Graduate from Yale University with an Urban Planning degree, Timothy Mellon formed Guilford Transportation Industries in 1977. President: David Fink
Childs Bertman Tseckares Architects (cbt) Master Planners; Sierra Building Architects CBT, located in Boston, MA, practice interior design, architecture, and master planning. They believe that the best design solutions are those with thoughtful collaboration. Project Manager: John Strothers Project Architect: Aris Bakalos Urban Planner: Kishore Varanasi
The Collaborative Companies Sales and Marketing The Collaborative Companies is a fullservice, residential real estate marketing firm specializing in the development and implementation of comprehensive sales and marketing programs. They can actively participate in the design development phase, formulate creative marketing strategies, manage on-site sales programs, and deliver a powerful creative marketing campaign throughout the duration of the project.
Jones Lang LaSalle Development Manager Jones Lang LaSalle is a global financial and professional services firm specializing in real estate services and investment management. They assemble teams of experts who deliver integrated services, are based in Boston, and are managing development, construction, and leasing of the NorthPoint project. Regional Manager: Kyle B. Warwick Spaulding & Slye Colliers Developers Spaulding & Slye Colliers, a real estate services firm was purchased by Jones Lang LaSalle in 2005. Project Manager: Mark Garber Project Executive: Peter Stankiewicz Principal: David Vickery Principal: Daniel O’Connell Senior Vice President: Howard J. Davis Vice President: Ralph F. Cox Vice President/Project Director: Lisa Serafin Community Liason: Nat Wysor Cambridge North Point LLC Managing Partner and Minority Owner A group of prominent local development executives.
Greenberg Consultants Inc. Master Planners They lead a multidisciplinary team of CBT and Michael van Vaulkenburgh Associates on the NorthPoint project. President/Principal: Kenneth Greenberg Michael van Valkenburgh Associates Landscape Designers Michael van Valkenburgh Associates has over twenty years of experience designing, building, and restoring landscapes with an approach of working closely with the site itself. Owner: Michael van Vaulkenburgh Haley & Aldrich: Geotechnical and Environmental Consultant Environmental Engineer: Keith Johnson Haley & Aldrich is integrating geotechnical and environmental solutions for NorthPoint. Beals and Thomas: Civil Environmental Permitting
Engineer
&
Regenesis Group, Inc.: Integrated Design and LEED Consultant http://www.regenesisgroup.com/WhoWeAre
Spaulding & Slye Colliers Marketing of Commercial Space Principal: Debra Gould Vice President: Dan Cordeau North Point Land Company
Miscellaneous
Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods President: John Moot Vise President: Stash Horowitz Civil Engineer: Stephen H. Kaiser
Boston Redevelopment Authority Deputy Director of Development Review: Heather Campisano
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) General Manager: Michael Mulhern General Manager: Dan Grabauskas
Eastern Cambridge Planning Study Committee The committee works closely with teams of professional planning consultants and address issues that include urban design, open space, land use, zoning, transportation, economic development and employment. Co-chairman: Douglas Ling Conservation Law Foundation Since 1966, the non-profit, member supported organization‘s staff has worked to solve environmental problems that threaten New England by creating innovative strategies to conserve natural resources, protect public health and promote vital communities in our region. Co-Founder: John Moot
City of Somerville Mayor: Joseph A. Curtatone City of Cambridge Mayor 2000-2001: Anthony D. Galluccio Mayor 2002-2005: Michael A. Sullivan State Representative: Timothy Toomey City Manager: Robert Healy Urban Planning Consultant: David Dixon City Council’s Ordinance Committee City Councilor: Michael Sullivan
CBT Case Study 17
MUNICIPALITIES
Highlighting the Team
COMMUNITIES
CBT Case Study 18
33 Arch Street, Boston Spaulding & Slye Development
125 High Street, Boston Spaulding & Slye Development
LASALLE
Spaulding & Slye Colliers, purchased by
They have worked on notable projects such as 33 Arch
Jones Lang LaSalle in 2005, is a real estate services
Street, 125 High Street, and The Fan Pier. Their 42
firm based in Boston with a large office in Washington
years of experience in Boston was not the only reason
D.C. As of 2005, Spaulding & Slye Colliers had 500
they decided to develop NorthPoint. First, they saw
employees and was heavily involved in the Boston
NorthPoint as essentially a “hole in a donut� type of site
and Washington D.C. markets.
However, Spaulding
in reference to built area. This led Spaulding & Slye
& Slye Colliers had little presence elsewhere. Jones
Colliers to believe that they could greatly enhance the
Lang LaSalle is a huge player in the real estate market
value of the site. Secondly, they believed they could do
worldwide with over 19,000 employees, but only had
this because of the great success they felt they had on
40 employees in Boston. Both firms provide numerous
The Fan Pier in Boston. The Fan Pier is a 20 acre mini-
real estate services including property management,
city that Spaulding & Slye Collier developed with Ken
leasing, investment sales, and development. The major
Greenberg at Urban Strategies and CBT years prior to
difference between the operations of the companies
NorthPoint. This mixed-use dense urban plan on the
is that Spaulding & Slye has a construction operation.
Boston waterfront, with structures from 15 to 23 stories,
Spaulding & Slye Colliers specializes in areas like higher
showed the team that they could make great projects
education, life sciences and law firm practices.
even at a large urban scale.
CBT Case Study 19
Spaulding & Slye Colliers has a long history in Boston.
Highlighting the Team
SPAULDING & SLYE COLLIERS / JONES LANG
CBT Case Study 20
The Fan Pier, Boston Greenberg Consultants master plan design with CBT and Spaulding & Slye Colliers
Convention Center District, San Juan Greenberg Consultants master plan design with CBT and Colliers International
San Juan Waterfront, San Juan Greenberg Consultants master plan design with CBT and Colliers International
has been a sole practitioner and principal of Greenberg
as master planners of NorthPoint. Before NorthPoint,
Consultants Inc. since he founded the company in 2001.
Ken Greenberg had prior relationships with CBT
In his career of over three decades, Ken Greenberg has
and Spaulding & Slye Colliers, most notably through
been a partner at two different firms, Carter-Greenberg
their work on The Fan Pier in Boston, when he was a
and Urban Strategies, and was the founding director
partner at Urban Strategies. The relationships between
of the division of Architecture and Urban Design, City
Greenberg Consultants Inc., Spaulding and Slye
of Toronto Planning and Development department.
Colliers, and CBT continue to be fruitful as they have
Greenberg Consultants Inc. pursues a creative problem
teamed up on numerous projects together. Greenberg
solving approach to managing change in all aspects of
also has connections to the Boston/Cambridge area
city building and rebuilding. In order to engage many
through work on the Big Dig, Boston University Strategic
diverse clients, Greenberg Consultants emphasize clear
Campus Plan, and Kendall Square.
communication verbally and graphically which allows for
Greenberg was Interim Chief Planner on the Boston
creativity with new technologies. The projects involve
Redevelopment Authority. The NorthPoint master plan
highly diverse urban settings in North America in Europe
was intriguing to Greenberg because he believed it was a
with a focus on revitalizing downtowns, waterfronts,
great project with city building opportunities, it had good
neighborhoods and campus master planning. Greenberg
clients, and because of the interesting relationships with
Consultants Inc. prides itself on crossing traditional
the municipalities.
boundaries and working on projects with several talented professionals from various disciplines, something that proved to be very helpful on a project with the scale and complexity of NorthPoint.
In 2005/2006,
CBT Case Study 21
Greenberg Consultants Inc. was not a random selection
Highlighting the Team
GREENBERG CONSULTANTS INC. Ken Greenberg
CBT Case Study 22
The Fan Pier, Boston CBT master plan design with Ken Greenberg and Spaulding & Slye Colliers
Mandarin Oriental, Boston CBT design
San Juan Waterfront CBT master plan design with Ken Greenberg and Colliers International
Tseckares (CBT) is a design firm in Boston that provides
thoughtful collaboration with multiple voices.
services in architecture, interior design, urban design
design outcomes are meant to resonate with the spirit
and graphic design. They have received over 120
of those who will use them. They carried this attitude
design awards for their excellence and creativity in the
throughout the entire process of NorthPoint and were
design of new buildings and the preservation of existing
concerned with how the outer edges of the master plan
structures.
would affect existing conditions; they did not want the
CBT is currently the largest architecture
firm in the area as ranked by Boston Business Journal
Their
neighborhood to be inward facing.
on architecture billings in Massachusetts. They also ranked second in the area on the list of largest interior
Rather than viewing master plans as an opportunity for
design firms. CBT has a staff of over 250 people which
a pretty picture, CBT views urban design as a vehicle
includes 10 partners and 53 registered architects.
to discover great clients which allows architecture to be
The firm’s current partners are James McBain, Alfred
pushed to the next level. They believe that many clients
Wojciechowski, Charles Tseckares, Christopher Hill,
are stuck in the old mold of a non-flexible plan. CBT
David Hancock, David Nagahiro, Lois Goodell, Margaret
worked with the parcels of NorthPoint by testing them
Deutsch, Richard Bertman and Robert Brown.
with different programs, heights, street offsets, street widths, and servicing in order to create a flexible master
CBT’s project types are extremely varied and encompass
plan. This flexibility eliminates time loss later in the
academic, mixed-use, residential, civic and preservation,
design process if a parcel needs to change to a different
and hospitality. They were known for small scale projects
program.
before their first major building in 1989. The size of their projects currently range from private residences to the 36
CBT was previously on a project, known as Fan Pier
story 111 Huntington Tower. Most of these projects are
in South Boston, with Spaulding & Syle Colliers and
located in Boston in the surrounding areas but there are
Kenneth Greenberg. This project began a few years
a few national and international projects including work
before NorthPoint which initially set up the organization
in places such as the Caribbean, Middle East, China
of their relationship.
and San Juan. Their clients comprise of individuals, academic institutions, counties and businesses. CBT is interested in pursuing sustainable architecture. They have over 30 LEED certified buildings and have developed an approach to design that balances economic
efficiency,
environmental
harmony
and
social benefit. They are engaged with their clients by introducing them to the financial and operational benefits of sustainability.
CBT Case Study 23
CBT believes that the solution to good design is through
Highlighting the Team
CHILDS BERTMAN TSECKARES Childs Bertman
CBT Case Study 24
Behnisch Architekten
Behnisch Architekten
Phase 1 Construction Built Parcel Unbuilt Parcel Built Park Unbuilt Park
CBT Case Study 25
Highlighting the Team Ehrlich Architects
Michael van Valkenburgh Associates
Childs Bertman Tseckares Architects Alliance
CBT Case Study 26
Locality
CBT Case Study 27
Integrated Design
Creating Team Identity
Trust and Vision
CBT Case Study 28
East Cambridge’s early vision for NorthPoint
The NorthPoint design team’s vision
and Greenberg Consultants pursued the NorthPoint
developers, understand constructability and permitting,
project as a team after working together on Fan Pier in
and cut through many issues with problem solving
Boston. Through the eight years of working together
techniques. Spaulding & Slye Colliers was a visionary
the three companies had gained a mutual trust in each
developing company with a large portion of their staff
other and recognized a similar vision in urban planning,
with design backgrounds that know how to build cities
architecture, and construction.
Each member of the
and are not purely driven by profit. The trust between
team brought unique skills to the project. Greenberg
the three parties was only enhanced by the dedication
Consultants had a broad world view on planning and
to a similar vision. CBT, Greenberg Consultants, and
permitting, brought credibility through his worldwide
Spaulding & Slye Colliers all believed highly that a team
recognition, had done similar work, and provided
approach, innovative thinking, and an equal dedication
general strategies and integration of transportation and
to designing the macro and micro will lead to the best
economics. CBT provided design skills in the physical,
results. They all believed that it is the details that make
macro and micro environments, as well as a background
a project, not the pretty picture.
CBT Case Study 29
in architecture which allowed them to work with many
Creating Team Identity
trust and vision Spaulding & Slye Colliers, CBT,
CBT Case Study 30
The landscape for the master plan was designed together with the buildings.
in preparation allowed for flexibility and innovation in the
approach grew from the mutual trust and vision the team
design process. By allowing ideas to come equally from
possessed. They knew from experience they gained on
all parties involved, the NorthPoint master plan became
the Fan Pier project that they could successfully interact
much stronger. A great example of integration is found
in a way that pushed and pulled at each other to produce
between the landscape designers and engineers who
the best results. Spaulding & Slye Colliers then hired
collaborated to manipulate the grades in order to place
the rest of the team to include people that were like
parking below what is actually above. Jim Kostaras of
minded to CBT and Greenberg Consultants and would
Somerville remarked on the quality of the integration of
be able to work in the integrated design environment.
architecture and landscape design and the willingness
The team would meet for half day sessions twice a week
of the developers to allow cutting edge design and reach
with everyone on the design team at the table. The
out to a whole new market of dense urban dwellers. This
coordination of this involved making sure that everyone
result was made possible through the full integration
did their tasks before coming to the meeting to insure that
from the beginning of the project.
everyone was interacting at the same level. This rigor
CBT Case Study 31
The integrated design
Creating Team Identity
integrated design
CBT Case Study 32
NorthPoint
A sample of local work locations by CBT and Greenberg Consultants
an extensive local resume with over 20 built projects in
NorthPoint, local firms provide numerous benefits over
Boston and Cambridge alone, with numerous others in
foreign firms. Local firms have the ability to move at
the surrounding cities. Greenberg Consultants, although
a rapid pace purely based on their location.
Since
not a local firm, has lots of experience on complex issues
Spaulding & Slye Colliers was in the neighborhood
in the area. Ken Greenberg worked on Kendall Square
of CBT, there could be informal meetings, which Lisa
in Cambridge, as well as the Big Dig, Boston University,
Serafin said are “invaluable even in the age of FTP
and Fan Pier in Boston. Spaulding & Slye Colliers was
sites and conference calls.� Local firms also have an
also a primarily local developer who had done numerous
advantage in the complex permitting process, such as
projects in Boston. This accumulated expertise and prior
NorthPoint, and it takes someone who understands
relationships were crucial to the very quick, eighteen
the community and permitting environment. Meetings
month planning process that needed extensive public
for NorthPoint were sometimes several nights a week
ground work because of the three municipalities that
and it was a highly visible permitting process. CBT has
were involved and the related community groups.
CBT Case Study 33
In a project as complex and public as
Creating Team Identity
Locality
CBT Case Study 34
CBT Case Study 35
The architect is critical in the formation of a team identity because it is their ability to simultaneously design in the macro and micro that allows a realistic vision to be pursued and executed. The physical manifestations of their ideas are proof of their creativity and their ability to understand permitting, constructability, developers and all the obstacles faced in order to complete an original vision. It is through these concrete examples that architects can gain trust through their colleagues. Working on the Fan Pier with Greenberg Consultants and Spaulding & Slye Colliers allowed CBT to showcase their abilities and dedication to a vision. Architects play a significant role in the integrated design process because of their abilities to problem solve and adapt quickly. Design education focuses on the ability to respond to criticism and feed off ideas from others. This perfectly suits the integrated design ideals. The assembled team for NorthPoint consisted of numerous people with design backgrounds that have entered different professional fields. This common foundation enabled discussions that were able to push and pull each member to bring them to the next level. The integrated design process is most effective with a local team because of the ease of meeting and the similar base knowledge set. A local architect contributes to the team identity immediately with their resume of completed work which has already shaped the area and been accepted by the cities and the communities. The team with the highest profiled members does not always produce the best results. Team identity is paramount in producing a great project.
Creating Team Identity
analysis
2000
2001
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
Cambridge Rezoning of NorthPoint Site
2002
MEPA Approval
FEIR Filing (MEPA)
PUD Filing (Cambridge) MEPA Trans. Working Group Convened
PNF Filing (Boston)
DEIR Filing (MEPA)
ENF Filing (MEPA)
Master Plan Design 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
CBT Case Study 36
CBT Case Study 37
Smart Growth Infrastructure Redevelopment Parcel Flexibility Urbanscape
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2005
Article 80 Approval
BCDC Approval (Article 80) Response to Comments (Article 80)
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2004
2003
PUD Decision / Approval (Cambridge)
Designing The Master Plan
Landscape
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
lle rvi e me So bridg m Ca
ay
ighw
ssw ay
So me Bo sto rville n
nH
xpr e
Brie
n
ld E
r O’
to
Li
ne
era
o sign
Com Low mute ell L r Ra il ine
F. F itzg
Mo n
lk e wa inut m 10
C Fi om tc m hb ut ur er g R / S ai ou l th Ac
Joh n
CBT Case Study 38
T Union Square
lk e wa inut m 5
T
T
Lechmere (Green Line) Community College (Orange Line)
T Gilmore
Bridge
e
wn Avenu
the
Ru
Charlesto
iver
Route 1
Cambridge Boston
T
rive
Storrow D
N
Interstate 93
Science Park (Green Line)
ue
ven dA
rfor
Charles R
urban development can occur in the center of a city by
was a decision by Guilford Transportation Industries
advocating ideas of compact neighborhoods, transit-
that led to many sustainable results. Not only did it
oriented development, pedestrian and bicycle use, and
provide a site for urban expansion without rural sprawl,
environmental qualities. It is a new way of planning that
it also allowed for the project to be walking distance to
challenges past planning strategies which encouraged
commercial areas of Boston and Cambridge. The site,
detached houses and automobile use that resulted
located in three cities, increases its possibility of being
in urban sprawl, traffic congestion, disconnected
very connected to the outside communities. Bridges over
neighborhoods, and urban decay. Creating a master
the major highways will act as physical connectors.
plan that combined a place to work, play, live, and visit was integral to NorthPoint’s vision. The site, surrounded
The
design
guidelines
incorporated
mixed
use
on all sides by multiple transportation choices, such
development, affordable housing and market rate
as MBTA transit stops and major highways, enhanced
units with a variety of housing types, inclusion of parks
the goal. Rather than deciding on a specific building
and recreation areas, and limited surface parking into
or use, the team’s solution was to organize open space
the plan. It is projected to have 2,700 residences, an
and an internal public realm to create convenience and
estimated 2.2 million square feet of office, lab, and retail
connectivity at a local and regional level to surrounding
space, and a 10 acre park centering the 45 acre site.
communities and cities. The focus was to avoid being
Like a city within a city, the tight city block structure and
an internal community by bringing presence onto the
street layout form a compact neighborhood that creates
street. There were many factors during the process that
a pedestrian friendly community that also reduces
produced opportunities for smart growth.
vehicular traffic. The ten acres dedicated to park land tie together the city blocks while also linking bicycle paths
Following sustainable
smart
growth
actions
principles
through
redevelopment strategies.
zoning
can
promote
policies
and
Haley & Aldrich assisted
the client with these sustainable solutions to help in the planning, permitting, regulatory compliance, design and construction of the buildings, infrastructure and other facilities.
to the adjacent cities.
CBT Case Study 39
Reclaiming the Brownfields rail yard site for NorthPoint
Designing The Master Plan
Smart Growth The theory of smart growth is that
CBT Case Study 40
Proposed vision of the new Lechmere at NorthPoint T station
Green Line Extension
Bu
sL
oa
New Retail Edge
din
eet Ex
tensio
n
g
1st Str
Le St chm ati er on e
S
Le
Cambrid
ch
ge Stree
t
me
re
Sq
ua
re Mo
1st Stre
et
ns
Lechmere T station relocation and Lechmere Square
ign
or
O’
Br
ien
Hi
gh
wa
y
and
that area for commercial use. Workers at these buildings
permitting Prior to the proposal of NorthPoint, the
would then have easy access to transportation without
cities of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville had been
disrupting the residential parcels.
discussing the extension of the Green Line to Ball Square in Medford. Since the proposal, the developers planned
The parcels that are adjacent to the new Green Line
to relocate the Lechmere T station across the Monsignor
route have the tracks integrated into their envelopes,
O’Brien Highway in exchange for the redevelopment
enhancing the public realm at the entrance to NorthPoint.
of the existing Lechmere T station. This will not only
The design guidelines require an extension of the existing
benefit the MBTA by paving the path for the Green Line
retail corridor on First Street into NorthPoint to create a
extension, but will also benefit the vision of NorthPoint.
retail edge along Lechmere Square, which augments this
The relocation of the Lechmere T station gave CBT
connectivity. The new retail edge is shown on the bottom
the opportunity to create a gateway to NorthPoint with
left as the thicker lines around Lechmere Square.
special attention to the organization of building program and street layouts.
The land given to the developers by the MBTA in exchange for the redevelopment of the station was
Improving pedestrian access to the site allows for the
agreed upon through a special permit with the Cambridge
desire to connect to existing communities. With the new
Planning Board. The special permit allowed Cambridge
transportation hub, people will be constantly moving
to agree to minor variances through the writing of the
through the site and therefore making the park even
developers own zoning requirements. This created
more of an accessible public amenity. The location of the
flexible parameters that anticipated board member
station informed the decision to designate the parcels in
changes and city changes.
T S
T
Lechmere Square
CBT Case Study 41
redeveloping
Designing The Master Plan
Infrastructure
Plan
288’ - 0”
31’ - 0”
Set Back North Str
Primary Pedestrian Access
eet 221’ - 0” 144’ - 0”
20’ - 0”
Primary Pedestrian Access
Set Bac
k
C - Cou rt 200’ - 0”
200’ - 0” D - Stre et
120’ - 0”
Vehicular Access
20’ - 0”
63’ - 0”
37’ - 0”
200’ - 0” North S treet
North P
ark Stre et 200’ - 0”
Primary Pedestrian Access
So
262’ 0” treet E xtens ion
ut
h
29
Pa
rk
5’
St
-0
”
Primary Pedestrian Access
re
et
et
First S
5’
-0
”
T Underground Configurations of the NorthPoint building types
”
2’
24
Re
18
-0
at e
d
Ea st
St
re
Commercial Access
loc
85’ - 0”
65’ - 0” 20’ - 0”
220’ - 0”
169’ - 0”
Vehicular Access
125’ - 0”
18 2’ -
0”
CBT Case Study 42
Massing
Vehicular Access
2020, the project will most likely experience economic
Residential
fluctuations and other changes. CBT’s thorough parcel testing allowed for the flexibility typically absent from
Residential blocks include lofts, townhouses, row houses, and apartments. The first floor should be open towards the street to allow for a community feel with the use of setbacks for stoops, porches, and front gardens. Each facade is to be designed as a front with many entrances off the streets of no more than 75’ apart. Courtyards are encouraged to allow for sun exposure. Corner retail is allowed where appropriate.
traditional master plans. Each parcel was tested with residential, commercial, and retail in order to discover the best solution. With the interest put into the street life and the eye of the pedestrian rather than specific cornice lines or brick facades, there is always room for alteration. This allows each building to play off of their immediate buildings while still being legible in a larger context. Architectural expression and diversity was able to be achieved through this innovative procedure which enhances the urban realm. For example, a portion of Parcel T was able to pop up due to the non-prescriptive
Commercial and Mixed Use
nature of the master plan. Mixed Use blocks include housing and / or commercial uses with highly encouraged active uses on the ground floors for the community and the surrounding area, including art exhibition space / display windows, services for the public, shops, restaurants, cafes, exhibition or meeting spaces, and commercial lobbies. Offices are discouraged from the ground level and should occupy no more that 200 to 250 feet. Entrances should relate to crosswalks and pathways to transportation.
Retail A
Retail blocks include commercial or residential on upper floors. They should be located where there is a high volume of pedestrian traffic. 75 percent of the street facade should be retail with visibility directly into the interior space. The use of awnings, canopies, and other element should be used to animate the street facade.
B
C
D
E
F
I J
K
G L
Q
H
M N
R V
S
T U
CBT Case Study 43
success of NorthPoint. Projected to be completed by
Designing The Master Plan
Parcel Flexibility Parcel flexibility is essential to the
Hierarchy guidelines of the NorthPoint streets
15’ Planted Sidewalk
8’ Parking Lane
a. Green Fingers Cross Section
125’ - 150’ 35’ - 55’ Public Open Space with Sidewalk
8’ Parking Lane
5’ Bike Lane
11’ Roadway
20’ Planted Median
11’ Roadway
5’ Bike Lane
8’ Parking Lane
35’ - 55’ Public Open Space with Sidewalk
b. First Street Extension Cross Section
16’ Roadway
47’ - 72’ Public Open Space (Green Finger)
16’ Roadway
8’ Parking Lane
15’ Planted Sidewalk
8’ Parking Lane 10’ Sidewalk
22’ Roadway
70’ Public Open Space
8’ Parking Lane
16’ Roadway
15’ Planted Sidewalk
c. West Boulevard Cross Section 147’
14’ Multi Use Trail
170’
15’ Planted Sidewalk
54’ - 68’
8’ Parking Lane
22’ Roadway
Public Open Space The Central Park
8’ - 15’ Sidewalk
8’ Parking Lane
22’ Roadway
8’ Parking Lane
8’ - 15’ Sidewalk
CBT Case Study 44
d. Block Interior/Service Street Section e. Park Perimeter Street Cross Section 45’
based off a typical block size of East Cambridge in
of the retail edge, which will complement existing retail,
order to respond to the existing fabric of the surrounding
also creates an urban realm.
communities. This aspect was of most concern to the City of Cambridge. CBT analyzed the block structure
Setbacks were extensively studied.
Every parcel’s
in order to find the correct scale and urban form for the
building must have a setback above no more than sixty
vision of NorthPoint. The goal was a tight block structure
five feet. The design guidelines also require that all
that facilitated a pedestrian-friendly layout.
blocks at the ground floor level are to be active during the day and night and should consist of public amenities
The master plan is meant to function as a single network,
to NorthPoint and surrounding communities. Creating
a city within a city. The open green space organizes
a community that is sensitive to the human scale was
the blocks and holds the single network together. Each
encouraged. The single network conveys the hierarchy
street was carefully coordinated with one another in
of roads, clarity of circulation, human scale, and public
order to specify dimensions for each street type which
realm.
will then create a hierarchy of uses throughout the site. Monsignor O’Brien Highway, previously non-pedestrian
green space integrated with the sidewalk. A new major
friendly, is receiving five new pedestrian crossings
street running east-west was inserted into the center of
including overhead crosswalks that connect directly to
NorthPoint in hopes to connect East Cambridge to the
the new MBTA Lechmere station. The new crossings will
new MDC Park along the Charles River. The extension
help connect NorthPoint to the existing communities.
d.
They consist of service roads and multiple streets with
b.
e.
c.
a.
S
New Pedestrian Crossings
CBT Case Study 45
of First Street into the site as well as the continuation
Designing The Master Plan
UrbanScape The parcel sizes for NorthPoint were
CBT Case Study 46
Rendering by Michael van Valkenburgh Associates of Central Park
Mo
ns
ign
or
Cambrid
O’
Br
ien
Hi
gh
wa
y
S
ge Stree
Ch ar les to
wn
Av e
1st Stre
nu e
et
t
La
nd B
ou le
va rd
Lechmere Canal
Storm water runoff to Lechmere Canal
the surrounding communities. The park is seen as a
park, green fingers, and a west boulevard green. These
connector piece that mends the breaks between the
spaces are important for the transformation of the site
existing green spaces by linking them to the central park
into a community.
through the green fingers.
The PUD zoning for Cambridge
CBT Case Study 47
Landscape The NorthPoint Park consists of a central
space. The developers were dedicated to creating a
Aside from the connector aspect, the park also gathers,
vision with the insertion of a park so that it would act as a
cleanses, and transports the storm water for the site
place maker and get people familiar with the area. They
through a retention pond. CBT worked very closely with
convinced the investors that a larger park would help sell
the engineers to integrate storm water drainage and
the vision. The final proposal exceeds the requirement
parking spaces into the design of the park. With 5,000
at 5.5 acres.
meters of parking area, CBT pushed for the manipulation of the grades in order to place the parking underground
As part of the single network, the central park and
without it actually being below grade.
green fingers arrange the urban blocks on the site while
improve water quality and control runoff through the
providing gathering space for informal residential and
integration of sedimentation fore bays, vegetated water-
cultural activities, a half acre wetland, a pond, and a
quality swales, and low impact development techniques
pavilion. The East Cambridge Planning Study states that
such as rain gardens. NorthPoint’s team is replacing the
there is very little opportunity in the existing dense area
actions that were traditionally naturally carried out by the
for public open space and that new park development
former Millers River with the park. The drainage is to
would have to occur on the outskirts.
empty out into the Lechmere Canal located south of the
NorthPoint
creates green space that has a sense of inclusion with
The park will
Designing The Master Plan
required that the development include 2.5 acres of green
site and just north of Cambridgeside Galleria Mall.
Somerville Community Path
West Boulevard Green Central Park Green Fingers
S Charles River Basin Park & Dr. Paul Dudley White Bicycle Path
CBT Case Study 48
CBT Case Study 49
The NorthPoint master plan is meant to read as a single network that emits a public realm. It is the twenty proposed parcels which make up this single network. The intricacy of the parcel relationships is what CBT brought to the table as both master planners and architects. Rather than a pretty picture, they were interested in how all these pieces could interact together without being dictated by program. An architect is well suited to coordinate the whole while focusing on one element of a whole. Surrounded by infrastructure on all sides, the site posed a challenge for the integration of existing communities. CBT used the relocated Lechmere station into NorthPoint as an incentive to create a larger “gateway� into the new community. The focus was on organizing a transportation hub for people living, working, visiting, and playing. Flexibility is crucial to the success of a master plan. Typical master plans are trapped by the preliminary pretty picture. CBT’s attention to detail was manifest during the parcel testing stage. Each parcel was rigorously challenged by all possible building programs. At the same time, the relationship between each parcel was studied so that the best solution could be discovered. The success of each small scale relationship enhanced the large scale relationship of the master plan to the existing communities. Special attention to human scale was the driving force to achieve the public realm. CBT organized the streets into hierarchies which are woven between tight block structures, similar to a city. Appropriate setbacks were used in order to avoid towering blocks. The streets are to have activity day and night allowing for twenty four hour life. The public green spaces are the glue that holds all the other master plan elements together. It also manages the storm water drainage and underground parking. CBT worked very closely with the engineers in order to integrate the three programs of the park together.
Designing The Master Plan
analysis
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2002
2001
2000
CBT Case Study 50
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
CBT Case Study 51
Siting Form Plan and Section
Sierra Building Design 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2005
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2004
2003
Designing The Sierra Building
Elevation
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
CBT Case Study 52
Residential, Commercial or Mixed use Commercial Residential
A B
C
D
E
F
I J
K
G L
Q
H
M N R
V
S T U
Conceptual Land Use
150’ - 220’ 120’ 65’ - 85’
Zoning Envelope
predetermined for a specific program, it was available
access to the street are located on the three sides of the
for Residential, Commercial/Mixed use, or Retail. Its
building that face away from the commercial zone, and
location on the site places it on the Cambridge portion
instead towards the park and residential buildings.
of NorthPoint, sandwiched between existing residential development and the central park on the south and north
As master planners and designers of this building, CBT
respectively, and a commercial and a residential building
was well versed in the hierarchy of streets. This can
on the west and east respectively. Its surroundings give
be seen by the location of the lobbies of Parcel S and
it four facades that all face different types of neighbors.
Parcel T. The lobbies face each other and open out on to one of the designed green fingers which creates
Because Parcel S is on the south part of the site closest
a common interstitial social space and links the two
to Cambridge, it was designed to be topped off at 81
buildings to each other as well as to the central park.
feet. This followed the design guidelines which specified
The parking entrance faces away from the residential
65-85 feet. The building is sited on the parcel away
areas and is placed on the street that is trafficked mostly
from the commercial, and towards Parcel T to the west.
by vehicles and thus avoids conflict with pedestrians.
This allows for a dialogue between the two residential
The plan of the building is also affected by the hierarchy
buildings which were built at the same time. It also
of the streets. That same side also internally features a
creates a larger buffer between the residential units and
large transformer room in the plan.
park
Commercial
residential lobby
parking
existing
CBT Case Study 53
the commercial parcel. The ground floor units with direct
Designing The Sierra Building
SITING Parcel S, the Sierra Building, was not
CBT Case Study 54
Sout
h Pa
rk St
reet
Prim
ary P
trian
0”
Acce
7’
12
128’ - 0
”
Re
loc
at
ed
Ea
s - 0 t Str ” ee t
130’ -
edes
Vehicular Access
Sout
h Dr
ive
20’ - 0” Building Envelope
Sample Envelope
85’ - 0”
65’ - 0”
Plan
ss
for NorthPoint organizes criteria for the overall scope
The envelope of the building is 6-7 story perimeter
of building design, as well as the information for each
building with a line of expression at the second floor
specific parcel. To the right is the specified criterion for
level. The line of expression defines the base and is
Parcel S on which the Sierra Building was constructed.
intended to humanize the scale of the building and create an intimate pedestrian experience. This should
The diagrams on the opposing page begin to layout basic
be achieved by means of material articulation or
information such as the entry points, length, width, and
architectural detailing. Each base, in its entirety, will be
height, to give an example of the possible massing for
designed to give the appearance of greater height than
the building designer. The final massing of the designed
any single floor in the middle. The first floor may be
Sierra Building is similar in shape to the example, but
elevated on one-half level above grade parking.
differs slightly in that instead of a U-shaped plan it has an interior courtyard, and the building meets the street
Building design shall also give special consideration to
edge at all four sides. The building was able to change
the streetscape and scale of the South Park Street and
do to the flexibility of the master plan guidelines. The
conform to the overall legibility of the street. Projections
double line at the bottom of most of the parcels’ sample
like bow windows, balconies and terraces are encouraged
envelopes highlights the overall agenda of having a very
on all sides to take advantage of both sun and
pedestrian friendly master plan by putting an emphasis
spectacular views of the park. It should also contribute
on designing the ground floor at a human scale.
to the character and scale of the finger. Building design shall make a special effort to respond to and integrate
The final building statistics are very close to the
the adjoining Charles E. Smith development.
approximate dimensions originally provided.
Approximate Dimensions:
Final Dimensions:
Parcel Size: 19,500 SF Gross Square Footage: (+/-) 112,000 SF Uses: Mixed Use, Residential or Commercial Number of Dwelling Units: (+/-) 95 Parking Levels: Below grade, one half level above grade Maximum Height of the Building: 85’ Lot Coverage: 100% Primary Pedestrian Access: South Park Street, C – Court Vehicular Access: Relocated East Street
Parcel Size: 19,500 SF Gross Square Footage: 136,665 SF Use: Residential Number of Dwelling Units: 99 Parking Levels: Below grade Height of the Building: 81’ Primary Pedestrian Access: South Park Street, C – Court Vehicular Access: Relocated East Street
CBT Case Study 55
Sierra Building Design Guidelines:
Designing The Sierra Building
FORM The Eastern Cambridge Design Guidelines
CBT Case Study 56
Residential Massing Example
Balconies Residential Facade Details
Entries/Stoops Residential Entries and Stoops
NorthPoint focused on form in terms of size, program,
the ground floor open to the street, and are mediated
and elements.
Studies of existing neighborhoods
by stoops and plantings. The ground floor windows
enlightened a few elements that could be used in a
look onto the street and provide the “eyes on the street�
variety of ways to create the desired environment while
concept in the master plan to make it more walkable and
weave the existing communities to NorthPoint.
pedestrian friendly. Privacy is maintained by operable wooden slat screens. The design guidelines recommend
The emphasis on the pedestrian scale is shown once
balconies, possibly to break down a façade to the human
again in the residential massing example on the opposite
scale, but CBT reinterpreted the concept of the balcony
page. In the Sierra building shown below, the overall
to fit the contemporary vision of the master plan. The
massing takes on a much more pure rectangular form
balconies are simple railings on the upper floors with
and uses material change to achieve the desired effect
operable doors that extend the units into the site through
of a differentiated ground floor, rather than the setbacks
sight, smell, and sound, rather than a physical protrusion
noted in the design guidelines.
from the building.
The color and size
changes are only the beginning of bringing the scale
CBT Case Study 57
of the building to the pedestrian. Most of the units on
Designing The Sierra Building
FORM The Eastern Cambridge Design Guidelines for
CBT Case Study 58
bamboo garden
Typical Floor Plan
light well
Typical Loft Floor Plan
Building is a central, full height light well surrounded
complexity because it is much harder to get older people
by double height loft units. The lack of a back to the
to invest in a project that is slated to take 15 years to
site informed this layout by providing four equally
complete.
exposed sides. The plan was heavily influenced by the
they both iterated that to have value you must build
integrated design process which allowed the architects
something different. The double height loft units achieve
to show many renditions and options for opportunities in
that goal. The double height units have a significant
the building, and not just design what they thought the
effect on the plan and section of the Sierra Building.
other side wanted. For example, the light well began
The loft plan allows for a double height living room that
as a discussion with the construction manager, client,
links the two floors to the 14 foot glazing that separates
and developer of common space on the roof, which was
the units from the exterior. In section the units are only
then changed to an atrium, and finally a light well. The
entered at every other floor, which allows for a skip stop
final configuration evolved over time as each phase of
elevator system and frees additional room on the upper
design was followed by a budgeting estimate and value
floors because of the lack of need for corridors. In some
engineering exercise by the construction manager.
cases, the eliminated corridor on the loft floor opens
In interviews with CBT and Lisa Serafin,
up cross ventilation for 8 units on every floor that have The vision of NorthPoint was to create a new, modern
access to the light well. The light well provides light
community for work and life, and the plan of the Sierra
and ventilation to the corridors on the typical floors as
Building exemplifies that vision with open floor plans,
well. The bamboo garden in the light well can be seen
double height loft units, and contemporary finishes.
as a visual amenity as well as a social link between the
The goal of the residential buildings in the master plan
garden and the bamboo floors of the units.
is to attract a younger audience. Targeting a younger
Building Section
CBT Case Study 59
clientele is important in a master plan of this scale and
Designing The Sierra Building
Plan and section The basic layout of the Sierra
CBT Case Study 60
Stoops/Entries South Elevation
Building Entry
East Elevation
Parcel T Building behind
Parking Entry
West Elevation
the contemporary vision of NorthPoint while mostly
suggest rhythm and variation appropriate to the urban
adhering to the East Cambridge Design Guidelines.
context such as smaller bays along residential streets
The double height windows, smooth panels, and
and larger bays on commercial and retail streets. This
large gestures such as the white paneled wrapper are
idea of bays can be seen on the east and west facades
stylistically very contemporary.
The stoops and the
through the use of the different colored panels and the
double height glazing on the first floor provide the “eyes
slight depth change, but the north and south facades are
on the street� to penetrate through the ground floor,
one large bay.
the white paneled wrapper differentiates the rest of the building from the darker gray panels, and the building
It is clear from the detailing of the building that much of
entries for pedestrians on the east and cars on the west
the resources were put into the ground floor elevations,
are clearly defined.
reaffirming the importance of the pedestrian in order to avoid unwelcoming spaces. The ground floor becomes
The major departure from the guidelines is seen in the
much more tactile, varied and appropriate to the human
smoothness of the façade. The guidelines ask residential
scale then the upper floor massing with wood slats and
buildings to have varied architecture and avoid flat
decking, steel framing, textured panels and plantings.
facades by using bays, balconies, porches, stoops, and
The wood slats and steel canopies on the first floor only
other projecting elements. Although there are balconies,
go up to half of the height of the loft to also help bring
they are flush with the building. The variation in form
down the scale.
is subdued and only reveals itself at building entrances
North Elevation
CBT Case Study 61
and in the white wrapper panels. The guidelines also
Designing The Sierra Building
elevation The elevations of the Sierra Building convey
CBT Case Study 62
CBT Case Study 63
The Sierra Building at NorthPoint is an important milestone as it is the first physical realization of the large and complex master plan. The difficulty in the design of this building was to balance between its freedom of being a pioneer and the guidelines of the master plan. The final result had to be successful before and after the other elements of the master plan fill in. The decision makers for NorthPoint thought it was prudent to choose CBT, the master planners, to design the building because of their knowledge of the project, their understanding of the community, their relationship with the developers, and their success in similar buildings in the area. The first building sets the tone for the rest of the buildings and it is crucial for it to succeed in the vision of the master plan in siting, form, plan, section, and elevation. The choice in the siting of the building on parcel S was very limited due to the well thought out master plan in which they tested every parcel for building sizes. The success in the Sierra building siting was the relationship between the surrounding streets and their interaction. It is clear from the layout of the plan that the architect was well versed in the overall scope of the master plan and was able to use that to inform internal decisions that have a much larger reach than that of just the individual building. The form of the building compromises between the contemporary vision of NorthPoint and the somewhat contradictory guidelines. NorthPoint wants to provide a new type of contemporary neighborhood for young professionals, and the Sierra Building provides a very contemporary form. However, this form has a larger scale and does not break down the overall massing as much as the guidelines suggest with balconies and bays. Being part of the authorship of these macro design guidelines gave CBT the confidence and leverage to break from them when they felt it more important to the overall vision. The plans and sections reveal the attention to detail that CBT provides as architects. The materiality on the ground floor stoops is contemporary but welcoming to pedestrians. The double height windows allow for deeper units with details such as an open riser stair allows natural light to filter even deeper into the units. The elevation, the face of NorthPoint for the time being, immediately advertises to the young demographic they are pursuing. However, it seems that in this fulfillment of the master plans’ contemporary vision, the idea of creating a “21st century city” was slightly ignored on the face of the building in terms of sustainability. The 14 foot glazing on the south side of the building have virtually no protection against the sun and will most likely raise cooling costs in the summer. The slats screens on the ground floor could have perhaps informed a sun-shading system on the upper floors that may have better conveyed the promise of a “21st century city.”
Designing The Sierra Building
analysis
CBT Case Study 64
Regarding the Future
CBT Case Study 65
Conclusion
CBT Case Study 66
The plan integrates itself with the city
attention to either the macro or the micro in master
through the macro, such as public transportation, and
planning has failed, and in some sense, brought a
the micro, like pedestrian friendly streets and sidewalks.
negative connotation to the phrase “master planning.�
The integrated plan is a result of the integrated design
Even the adjectival use of master with planning
process. A master plan striving for detailed flexibility
assumes a dominant and controlling vision. Success in
should have full integration from the beginning of the
master planning lies in the integration, coordination, and
process. The coordination and organized exchange of
organization of detailed flexibility. This detailed flexibility
ideas allows for the necessary holistic yet comprehensive
planning relies on a varied team of experts in which the
approach to achieve a successful plan. The combination
architect has a critical role.
of many disciplines in a single discussion propels macro design decisions while each individual specialty is still
CBT showed in this case study the skills that architects
able to think about the micro.
have to provide for a more successful master planning process. Architects have been accused of being too
Architects ultimately end up designing individual parcels
image and detail oriented in master planning, but it is the
in most master plans. Many of the problems constricting
testing of numerous details and images that allows for
these architects such as unbuildable parcel dimensions
a proven flexibility while showing the three dimensional
and inflexible design guidelines can be avoided by
implications that these options could create.
having architects participate in the master planning
This
result then provides a plan that is not a deterministic
process.
CBT was a large part of the reason why
blueprint that is an end in itself, but rather a detailed
NorthPoint was awarded the AIA urban planning award.
study of the possibilities that future developers and
Just as the public realm organized urban relationships
architects have in creating a unique yet cohesive reality.
and buildings in the master plan, CBT bridged that gap
Cities are constantly evolving physically, socially, and
between macro and micro planning.
economically, and the master planning process must
detailed training in the built environment and capability
take that into account.
of pursuing a vision that allows them to design space
It is architects
regardless of the scale. Master planning is a result of an NorthPoint in essence is a neighborhood plan, an
integration of numerous factors; to be successful it must
area of character meant to harmonize with the existing
be an integrated process.
CBT Case Study 67
community.
Regarding the Future
conclusion History has taught us that exclusive
CBT Case Study 68
91 Projects. “91 Projects: Protecting Boston’s Future.” 91 Projects. http://91projects.com/default.aspx (accessed February 17, 2009) Bakalos, Aristotle and Kishore Varanasi. Cavin Costello and Elizabeth Utz. In person interview. Boston, MA. 27, February 2009. Bokov, Anna & Alice Martin. “Edge As Center: Envisioning The Post-Industrial Landscape.” (2006) (PDF version of document downloaded March 8, 2009) Childs Bertman Tseckares. “Northpoint Master Plan Cambridge MA.” Presentation Booklet. Childs Bertman Tseckares. “cbt.” Childs Bertman Tseckares. http://www.cbtarchitects.com/ (accessed February 17, 2009) Clements, Joe. “NorthPoint Project Set To Roll After Groundbreaking Event.” Banker & Tradesman (March 28th, 2005), http://www. northpointcambridge.com/download/NP_bandt_3.28.05.pdf Coe, Jon. “Plan Ahead: A Short Overview of the Planning Process.” (May 2005) (PDF version of document downloaded March 29, 2009) “Community Forum NorthPoint Project Update.” (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009) “East Cambridge Design Guidelines: North Point.” (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009) Fitzgerald, Jay. “NorthPoint Speeds New T Station Plan.” Boston Herald General Economics Reporter (January 12, 2006), http://www. northpointcambridge.com/news_herald_12.01.06.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Flint, Anthony. “Cambridge Neighbors Cool To $1.2B Building Plan.” The Boston Globe (November 18, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/ users/rauch/northpoint/globe1118.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Giddings, Dr. Bob and Bill Hopwood. “A Critique of Masterplanning As A Technique For Introducing Urban Design Quality Into British Cities.” (PDF version of document downloaded March 24, 2009) Gillete, Christine. “Cambridge Train Yard Made New.” Portsmouth Herald (July 07, 1999), http://portsmouthnhemployment.com/1999news/7_30c. htm (accessed February 17, 2009) Greenberg, Kenneth. Cavin Costello. Phone interview. Boston, MA. 26, February 2009. Hurley, Mary. “Council Discusses North Point Plan.” The Boston Globe (July 22, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/ Globe_7-22.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Hurley, Mary. “Rezoning Ok Urges Housing, Limits Development In City’s East.” The Boston Globe (October 21, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit. edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/globe1021.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Icon Architecture. 2003. “North Point Somerville: Planning Study.” (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009) “John Moot & another vs. Department Of Environmental Protection & others.” http://91projects.com/ (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009) Jones Lang LaSalle. “Jones Lang LaSalle.” Jones Lang LaSalle. http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/Pages/Home.aspx (accessed February 17, 2009) Jones Lang LaSalle. “NorthPoint.” Jones Lang LaSalle. http://www.northpointcambridge.com/ (accessed February 17, 2009)
CBT Case Study 69 Kostaras, Jim. Cavin Costello. Phone interview. Boston, MA. 02, March 2009. Mccown, James. “NorthPoint Exposure.” Boston Business Journal (March 15, 2002), http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2002/03/18/ focus1.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Mousalli, Mohammed Said. “Inadequacies of Master Planning in the Physical Development of Universities in Saudi Arabia.” (PDF version of document downloaded March 29, 2009) Nagahiro, David. “Contemporary Urban In Metropolitan Boston.” Multi-Family Trends (October 19, 2005), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/ download/NP_multifamilytrends_10.19.05.pdf (accessed February 17, 2009) NorthPoint Condominiums. “Condolicious.” NorthPoint Condominiums. http://www.condominiumsatnorthpoint.com/home.htm (accessed February 17, 2009) NorthPoint Planning Document. (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009) O’Connell, Daniel. “Fan Pier & North Point.” Massachusetts Building Congress (March 2002), http://www.buildingcongress.org/pdf/2002-03.pdf (accessed February 17, 2009) Ortiz, David. “Another East Cambridge Master Plan: Group Raises Concerns About Density, Traffic In City Proposal.” Chronicle (June 19, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/Town_Online_6-19.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Palmer Jr., Thomas C. “The Train Comes To NorthPoint.” The Boston Globe (October 23, 2006), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/news_ globe_23.10.06.html (accessed February 17, 2009) Pratt, Elsbeth. Cavin Costello and Elizabeth Utz. In person interview. Boston, MA. 05, February 2009. Reidy, Chris. “15-Year, 3-City NorthPoint Project Kicks Off Today.” The Boston Globe (March 21, 2005), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/ download/NP_globe_3.21.05.pdf (accessed February 17, 2009) Serafin, Lisa. Cavin Costello. Phone interview. Boston, MA. 12, February 2009. Silman, Ruth H. “Massachusetts Passes Corrective Legislation Regarding Landlocked Tidelands.” Environmental Alert: Recent Developments In Environmental Law. Nixon Peabody LLP. (Novermber 2007) (PDF version of document downloaded March 6, 2009) Shuman, Matthew. “NorthPoint: A Model For Smart Growth.” Town Of Bedford (January 10, 2006), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/news_ bedford_10.01.06.html (accessed February 17, 2009) SRA International, Inc. Successful Rail Property Cleanup and Redevelopment: Lessons Learned and Guidance to Get Your Railfields Projects On Track. (PDF version of document downloaded March 12, 2009) Van Voorhis, Scott. “North Cambridge Condos Part Of A Bigger Plan.” The Boston Herald (August 16, 2005), http://www.northpointcambridge. com/download/NP_herald_8.16.05.pdf (accessed February 17, 2009) Spaulding & Slye Construction. 2005. Construction Management Plan: NorthPoint Project. (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009)
Sources
Kindleberger, Richard. “New Plan Offered For Cambridge Site.” The Boston Globe (May 17, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/ northpoint/Globe_5-17.html (accessed February 17, 2009)