Envisioning the Future of MIT’s Northwest Campus in Cambridgeport

CPORT + MIT

Envisioning the Future of MIT’s Northwest Campus in Cambridgeport

By the Students of 11.360, Community Growth and Land Use Planning Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Fall 2016

CPORT + MIT Envisioning the Future of MIT’s Northwest Campus in Cambridgeport

Prepared for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Office of Campus Planning © 2017 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Urban Studies and Planning School of Architecture + Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA

Credits Authors Jaswanth Madhavan, MCP 2017 Scott Margeson, MCP 2017

Fernando Montejo, MCP 2017

Billy Ndengeyingoma, MCP 2017

Course Advisors Terry S Szold, Adjunct Professor of Land Use Planning / Co-instructor Minjee Kim, PhD Candidate / Co-instructor Carlos Sainz Caccia, Teaching Assistant 4

Acknowledgements The project team would like to especially thank the following groups and individuals, whose generous contributions of time, expertise and support helped make this project possible:

MIT Community

Office of Campus Planning (OCP) Dennis Swinford, ASLA, Director Kelley Brown, AICP, LEED AP, Senior Campus Planner Melissa Shakro, AICP, Campus Planner Government & Community Relations Sarah Gallop, Co-director

Investment Management Company (MITIMCO) Michael Owu, Director

Cambridge Community

Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association (CNA) Cathie Zusy, President Cambridge Historical Commission Charles Sullivan, Executive Director Sarah Burks, Preservation Planner

Cambridge Community Development Department Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner Suzannah Bigolin, Urban Design Project Planner

5

Table of Contents Executive Summary I. Introduction Course Summary................................................................. 13 Process..................................................................................... 14 Project Timeline................................................................... 17

II. About the Study Area

Project Scope......................................................................... 21 Historical Context................................................................ 22 Demographics....................................................................... 23 Prior Planning Studies....................................................... 24

III. Existing Conditions

Design Character...................................................................29 Land Use & Activities..........................................................32 Transit & Connectivity........................................................36

IV. Goals MIT’s Program Needs............................................... 41 Community & City Priorities................................. 42 Project Vision & Principles..................................... 45

V. Future Scenarios

Catalyst sites................................................................. 51 Zoning Analysis........................................................... 52 Scenario #1: Arts........................................................ 55 Scenario #2: Innovation......................................... 71

VI. General Recommendations VII. Appendices

A: Glossary......................................................................90 B: Commercial Assets in Cambridgeport..........92 C: References.................................................................95

7

Executive Summary

Scenario 1 - Arts (permitted as-of-right)

Scenario 2 - Innovation (assumes deviations from existing zoning)

8

This plan offers two alternative, long-range visions for managing future growth and development of the Northwest Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), located in the Cambridgeport neighborhood of Cambridge, MA. The work was commissioned

by MIT’s Office of Campus Planning (OCP), and the project was conducted by a team of graduate students from MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning, as part of a practicum class on community growth and land use planning. The team was asked for to fulfill MIT’s programmatic needs in a bold and thoughtful manner that would serve MIT,

protect and respond to the Cambrigeport their priorities for the neighborhood. Armed neighborhood’s and the City’s concerns, and with this background, and a suite of urban generate excitement about the area’s future. planning skills, they arrived at two alternative scenarios for future development.

The area is presently dominated by residences in the north and west, existing campus One, the Arts scenario, envisions MIT’s many buildings to the south and east, and a variety cultural innovations “spilling” out of the of light industry and technology companies in west campus and into the Cambridgeport between. Most MIT-owned parcels here are neighborhood. In this scenario, a pedestrian under-developed relative to current zoning, bridge allows access to MIT’s new theater leaving parts of the area feeling emptier and building on Vassar Street, while performance duller than necessary. At the same time, MIT spaces work with artistic and crafting is looking for space for additional graduate makerspaces to enliven the neighborhood with housing, academics, and a variety of other MIT’s rich supply of creative performance and activities. visual artists. Mixed-use buildings elsewhere provide the housing and office space MIT Therefore, increasing building densities and needs, while also activating the street and diversifying uses in this neighborhood over providing retail and dining amenities to the next few decades would help to fill many nearby students and residents. of MIT’s emerging spatial and functional needs, while simultaneously making the The second scenario, Innovation, envisions neighborhood more vibrant and livable. using the neighborhood as a home for many of MIT’s current and future collaborative The team began by studying the area’s innovation projects. This vision features history, demographics, architecture and co-working spaces, makerspaces, and current uses; they worked with the client other buildings that encourage the crossto understand MIT’s needs, and engaged disciplinary collaboration for which MIT with the local community to understand is justly famous. A gallery helps to make

visible all the great work going on, while a community center allows for a more social type of collaboration between the MIT and residential communities. This scenario also explicitly recommends that some of its housing allotment go towards affordable housing development, which is aligned with the priorities of the residential community and the city.

What is common to both scenarios is the team’s overall goal for the future: a neighborhood that is livable, equitable, and accessible to all, which preserves the area’s rich history and identity while generating new vibrancy and interweaving the MIT and residential communities. Furthermore, the scenarios are not meant to be mutually exclusive. Rather, each highlights particular ways of enhancing the study area, while also addressing the needs and priorities of the South Cambridgeport neighborhood and MIT community.

9

Introduction ........................Course Summary ........................................Process ..........................Project Timeline

Course Summary This project is the work of students in 11.360: Community Growth and Land Use Planning, a course co-taught by Adjunct Professor Terry Szold and PhD Candidate Minjee Kim at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Aimed at graduate students in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning, the course has

been taught regularly by Professor Szold for over twenty years, and allows students to learn the fundamental tools and techniques of land use planning, growth management, and placemaking. The course features a different client-based project every year in a community in Greater Boston.

Sidney Street at Waverly Street

This year, the client was the Institute itself.

MIT’s Office of Campus Planning (OCP) was considering the future of its “Northwest Campus”—consisting of MIT-owned property in the southern section of the Cambridgeport neighborhood of Cambridge, MA—and asked for the class’s help in exploring a long-term vision for the area. In particular, MIT has a strong need for more housing for its graduate students, especially those with families, and is also seeking additional space for academic programs, administration and facilities. With most other areas of campus already at or near full development, the under-developed Northwest Campus is an ideal place to look to achieve these goals. Of course, they want any future development to also serve MIT’s neighbors and meet the needs of the local community.

The students, with expert guidance from their instructors, then embarked on a semesterlong project to understand the neighborhood and the interests of its many stakeholders, in order to create a future vision that would work well for all. This plan is the result of their efforts.

13

Process Initial Analysis The project began with an initial study of the area. A walking tour led by MIT’s Office of Campus Planning was the first chance for students to see the neighborhood on the ground. It provided an introduction to the area, including its current uses, activity levels, local tenants, design characteristics, and existing assets such as the excellent open space network. It also gave the team an intuitive “feel” for the neighborhood that cannot be conveyed through pictures or statistics.

Back in the lab, the team then executed a comprehensive review of publicly available information about the neighborhood. Detailed maps were produced showing the area’s demographics in terms of age, race, income, and other key metrics. Cambridgeport’s rich residential and industrial history was also surveyed, providing an in-depth context for a neighborhood that has seen many changes.

The Project Team on Their Initial Walking Tour

14

The study’s findings can be found in Chapter II, About The Study Area, and Chapter III, Existing Conditions.

Client Input Next, stakeholder needs were researched and clarified. Several meetings with the Office of Campus Planning made clear the client’s spatial needs. A roundtable discussion was then held with staff from many of MIT’s programs, including facilities, graduate housing, and athletics. This highly collaborative working session helped clarify how the future of the Northwest Campus could be instrumental in furthering MIT’s academic mission, in a wide variety of different ways.

Additional meetings were held with MIT’s Investment Management Company and Office of Community and Government Relations. The former provided insight into the history, use, and suitability of specific properties within the study area, while the latter provided the historical and political context of MIT’s relations with the local community.

Coordination with City of Cambridge Staff from Cambridge’s planning arm, the Community Development Department (CDD), met with the team several times to explain the zoning regulations in the study area, as well as the city’s general planning philosophy and long-term goals. This was very important in

Materials for the Community Workshop providing both political and spatial context for any future changes to Cambridgeport.

Additionally, the Cambridge Historical Commission provided a detailed history of the neighborhood and of specific sites.

Community Engagement The project team also sought input from outside of MIT, including residents, employees and other stakeholders from the local community. Early in the process, the project team attended a monthly meeting of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association (CAN) to introduce themselves and the

project.

Next, a project website was designed and deployed. It provided basic information about the project to anyone interested, including its goals and motivations. It also advertised upcoming public meetings, and was regularly updated to include past presentations and newly developed material. The website also featured an innovative web map, where participants could “pin” comments to specific places in the neighborhood they felt merited attention. Over the following months, the website took in dozens of thoughtful

15

Process comments and proved to be a useful way to expand the universe of community input, since it was anticipated that not everyone interested would be able to attend a public meeting.

A public visioning workshop was held on November 2nd, 2016 at the MIT SidneyPacific Graduate Residence, within MIT’s Northwest Campus in Cambridgeport. The workshop was advertised to both MIT and local community members through the use of flyers and emails, including through the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association’s established email list. The team’s presentation at the workshop shared the results of the initial analysis, touching on current uses, history, and demographics of the study area.

Community members then shared their concerns and desires through a subsequent break-out session.

Each small group focused on a different aspect of the visioning process (land use, public realm, transportation, or design character).

Discussion results were summarized aloud for all attendees, and all feedback was recorded diligently. Approximately 25 people attended the public workshop.

16

The project team, working through a Client needs, community feedback and city collaborative and iterative planning and priorities are covered in greater detail under design process, synthesized the priorities Chapter IV, Goals. of the client and the community with urban planning best practices to produce two Scenario Development alternative visions for the area. These visions

Project Timeline are not intended to be final plans, but rather bold ideas to generate excitement and start a meaningful conversation about the future.

The scenarios were presented to the community at a second public meeting on December 8th, 2016, again at the MIT Sidney-Pacific Graduate Residence. The presentation was followed by a question-andanswer session to get the public’s feedback on the ideas. The meeting was attended by approximately 40 people from Cambridgeport and MIT, as well as representatives of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, the Cambridge Community Development Department, the Cambridge City Council, and MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning.

The scenarios can be found in Chapter V, Scenarios.

The final piece of the process was to produce this plan, which summarizes all the findings, feedback, and recommendations resulting from the process.

September • Beginning of class, introduction of project • Meeting with client • Walking tour of area • Review of history, demographics, and neighborhood identity • Meeting with City of Cambridge planning staff • Project website created

November

• Community workshop to present initial analysis of study area and gather input for the development of scenarios • Development of scenarios

October

• • • •

Roundtable with MIT stakeholders Analysis of zoning and city goals Analysis of area’s existing land uses Introduction of project at Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association meeting

December

• Community meeting to present scenarios and get feedback • Updates and revisions • Final report produced

Cambridge Residents Participating in the Nov. 2 Workshop

17

About The Study Area .............................Project Scope .......................Historical Context ...........................Demographics .................Prior Planning Studies

Project Scope Location The study area is located within the historic neighborhood of Cambridgeport, a largely residential area in Cambridge, Massachusetts that has a rich history dating back to the times of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

20

As can be seen from the image on right, the area of study is bounded on the south by Vassar Street, which forms the northwestern edge of the existing MIT campus. On the east, the area extends up to Massachusetts Avenue, where one may not only find an MIT-led commercial development known as the University Park, but also find popular retail establishments such as Flour and independent commercial developments such as the Novartis Research Center. Along the northern edge of the study area, parallel to and roughly corresponding with the length of Brookline Street, one can find a variety of single-family residential units as well as three-to-six story apartment complexes. Finally, along the Western edge of the study area, a number of MIT-affiliated offices, such as the MIT Alumni Association, can be found; popular landmarks such as the Boston University (BU) Bridge and the Magazine Beach Park are in close proximity to the Western edge.

The Study Area in Cambridgeport, Cambridge, MA

Land Ownership MIT also controls a large amount of land within the study area directly or indirectly. MIT’s properties are concentrated primarily along the eastern bounds of the study area, adjacent to University Park. The usage characteristics of these buildings are varied, ranging from the offices of MIT’s Office of Campus Planning and MIT Facilities to graduate housing complexes such as Edgerton House and Ashdown House.

There are MIT-owned buildings in other parts of the area too. The old California Paints building, located near Fort Washington Park, is owned by MIT, but is currently vacant. MIT Facilities also operates a mail sorting unit towards the western end of the study area.

21

Historical Context The history of the Cambridgeport neighborhood stretches back to the construction of the Longfellow Bridge in 1793 that connected Cambridge and Boston directly for the first time. Cambridgeport developed along the roads leading to the bridge.

concerned about the impact of this project on affordability, livability and neighborhood identity, organized under the umbrella of the After the 1960s, manufacturing facilities and Simplex Steering Committee; they persuaded more polluting industries were gradually MIT to consider their ideas for redeveloping replaced by research facilities, particularly this space. Some of these ideas were incorpothose belonging to biotechnology compa- rated into the development of the University The construction of the Grand Junction Rail- nies. However, some industrial land near Park (1987).2.3 road in the 1850s and ongoing filling of wet- Fort Washington Park was redeveloped into land in and around Cambridge spurred indus- residential units and apartment complexes. Even though the current study area does not trial development along a corridor stretching Nevertheless, the transition from industry to overlap with sites that have courted such from Magazine Beach to Massachusetts Av- research facilities has not been without con- controversy before, it is pertinent to mention enue (parallel to Vassar Street). One of the troversy; there have been several instances them here, in order to anticipate and proacfirst industrial complexes to be established in of disagreement and confrontation between tively address such concerns, in a manner that the neighborhood was the Reardon Factory, a the residents of Cambridgeport, incoming re- works for all. margarine production unit (and eventually, a search facilities and institutions encouraging soap and glycerin-making factory) bounded such influx, such as MIT.

by Vassar Street, Brookline Street and Erie Street.2.1 The closing of the Simplex Wire & Cable Company, located in eastern Cambridgeport From the 1930s onwards, a pattern of ex- adjoining Massachusetts Avenue, and its repanding industry (and later laboratories and placement with MIT-sponsored University research facilities) progressed towards Erie Park provoked controversy; MIT had purStreet. However, the residential districts in chased this plot of land in 1969. MIT sought this area remained largely untouched, osten- to develop this area into a 2.5 million-squaresibly because the expansion of factories and foot complex complete with a hotel and conlaboratories may have been perceived by the ference center, high-technology research and residential community as an attack on the development space, retail stores and housneighborhood, provoking a reaction similar ing. However, residents of Cambridgeport, Simplex Circa 1910

22

to that during the Inner Belt protests of the 1960s.2.2

Demographics Cambridgeport, as it stands today, is home to may indicate the likelihood of a significant hood for more than a short period of time substantial demographic diversity. According transient population, consisting of people (such as the period of pursuit of an academic to the most recent American Community Sur- who may not choose to live in the neighbor- degree or during a contract job). vey, in 2015 the neighborhood was home to 9,986 people, of which 5,530 were male and 4,456 were female. Although only 5 percent of the population was in the age range of 0-12, 38 percent of residents were within the age range of 13-24, and another 37 percent within the age range of 24-39. These statistics, shown in the near figure, suggest that a majority of residents in the Cambridgeport area are either college students, or entry-level to mid-career professionals.2.4 In terms of housing units, there were a total of 2,861 units, with 40 percent being family households and 60 percent being non-family households.

As can be seen in the far figure, housing occupancy was at 93 percent, of which 60 percent of the total stock was rental and 40 percent was of another form of occupancy (owned, mortgaged or leased). Of the remaining 7 percent of vacant housing, 40 percent is intended to be for rent. The predominance of rental properties in this neighborhood, combined with the plurality of resident young people,

Total Population (credit: R Campos)

Percentage of Housing Occupancy (credit: R Campos)

23

Prior Planning Studies MIT To date, MIT has not conducted a broad-based plan or guidelines of the Cambridgeport community that concerns this project study area. However, given that MIT owns several parcels of land in the neighborhood, some parcels have been included in previous studies, while others have been redeveloped. Previous studies conducted by the Institute have also identified concrete needs and aspirations for the future development of its campus.

The three MIT student dormitories in the study area—namely the Warehouse, Sidney-Pacific and Ashdown Graduate Residences—were constructed in 2001, 2002 and 2008 respectively through the use of site-specific development plans.2.5 MIT’s 2009 Town-Gown Report suggested that the Institute was preliminarily studying how to redevelop parking lots along Massachusetts Avenue, Albany Street and Vassar Street for development, as well as possible active ground floor uses.2.6 Furthermore, a 2014 MIT study recommended that graduate housing for 500-600 students be built in order to meet current unmet demand. The report also recommended that

24

housing units be configured in the form of buildings that can accommodate a variety of housing types, such as studios and multibedroom suites.2.7 This study is of relevance to this project because Cambridgeport is home to many more MIT-owned land parcels that could be studied for redevelopment to student housing.

densification and redevelopment.2.9

The Cambridgeport Blue Ribbon Committee Report of 1986 focused on community revitalization through balanced, orderly mixed-use development that was responsive to environmental, social and economic interests of the area’s residential and business community. It touched on land use, City of Cambridge housing and urban design issues, and key A number of previous planning studies aspects included provision of adequate open conducted in Cambridge are applicable to space, housing, employment, tax revenue, and the study area and broader Cambridgeport upgrading of the physical environment. 2.10 community. The 1983 “Cambridgeport Revitalization Plan” was one of the first The “University Park at MIT: Urban Design comprehensive planning efforts undertaken Guidelines” (1987) provided a plan for in the neighborhood.2.8 It addressed the the University Park Project that was to be diverse needs of the community by proposing developed in the section of Cambridgeport a program of balanced development. The previously housing Simplex, the Kennedy report identified five locations for design and Biscuit Company, the Necco candy factory, land use planning improvements, including a Sears shoe factory and a Ford assembly the site of the former Simplex Company plant. The guidelines emphasized streetand other manufacturing plants. The plan oriented development and the formation called for a gradual stepping up of building of useful and meaningful public use space. heights towards the MIT campus, through It set forth guidelines on building height, FAR regulation and land use characteristics. building streetwall, streetscape, parking and It also addressed concerns of Cambridgeport circulation in the area.2.11 residents by identifying areas for traffic calming and open space, and moderation in

Published in 1992, the “South Cambridgeport Development Guidelines” offered more concrete planning guidance for the area south of Pacific Street and west of Albany Street.

It supplemented provisions outlined in the Special Districts zoning of 1992 and Article 19, which established traffic and urban design standards for development projects likely to have significant impact on abutting properties and the surrounding urban environment. The 1992 guidelines concerned the integration of new development into the traditional pattern of streets and neighborhood squares, and emphasized linking open spaces to surrounding areas, as well as using the open space network as a framework to organize development. The report also called for infill housing to help strengthen the residential character of the areas near Brookline Street, keeping in scale with traditional use patterns, and with more dense housing being built further away from the existing neighborhood to minimize impacts. The guidelines further emphasized a breakdown of large blocks to improve neighborhood permeability, and to create visual connections from the neighborhood to the MIT campus and Charles River.2.12

Urban Design Plan (1992 South Cambridgeport Development Guidelines)

25

Existing Conditions ......................Design Character ....................Land Use & Activity ................Transit & Connectivity

Design Character Lynch Analysis To assess the design character of the study area, the team used urban planner Kevin Lynch’s framework to discern the following physical elements of a place: landmarks, nodes, paths, districts and edges. According to Lynch, these elements are distinct but particularly relevant in relation to one another, since together they influence a place’s structure, identity, and legibility—the ease with which people can understand the layout of a city (Lynch 1960).

Lynch Analysis: Existing Landmarks Landmarks Landmarks can be defined as external visual references that help forge and maintain the character of an area. The team noted four landmarks in and around the study area.

The Metropolitan Storage Warehouse at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Vassar Street constitutes a landmark for its historic character and its large footprint and height. Similarly, the 100 Landsdowne apartment building is a landmark that towers above the other buildings in the study area. Simmons Hall, an MIT undergraduate

dormitory on Vassar Street, is a wellknown architectural landmark. Finally, Fort Washington Park is an important public meeting place in the Cambridgeport neighborhood and holds a significant historic value for the City of Cambridge.

Nodes Nodes are street junctions which constitute important points of entry into an area and/ or concentrations of use or physical character.

The intersection of Brookline, Waverly and Granite Streets is an existing major point of

entry into the study area. Pacific Street Park also functions as a node that concentrates leisure activities. The team also noted two areas with potential to act as nodes in the study area. Fort Washington Park is a significant landmark but does not seem to act as a node (from the team’s initial impressions on the walking tour). One explanation could be the two vacant lots with limited activity on either side of the park and the Grand Junction Railroad which limits connectivity to the park.

Another potential node is the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Albany Street. A

29

Design Character

Lynch Analysis: Existing & Potential Nodes surface parking lot is currently located there and represents an underwhelming use given the location as a potential entry point into the Northwest Campus and Cambridgeport neighborhood.

Paths Paths represent usual, occasional and potential axes of movement along which other physical elements are arranged. During the initial walking tour throughout the study area, the team encountered a few axes of movement that

30

Lynch Analysis: Potential Paths

could potentially serve as paths. The first is the bike path connecting Purrington and Waverly Streets. This path is significant as it offers a cyclable and pedestrian connection between the northeastern and southwestern section of the study area with the southeastern parts, especially with Fort Washington Park. Pacific and Erie Streets also constitute potential paths as they are relatively aligned with the two pedestrian crossings over the Grand Junction Railroad, and also have strong visual connections to MIT’s West Campus (including

a view of the Simmons Hall landmark) and the Boston skyline beyond MIT (including a view of the Prudential Tower).

Edges Edges are linear boundaries with varying levels of permeability or seams, along which two districts come together. Stronger edges are both visually prominent and continuous in form and impenetrable to cross movement.

The team identified two perceived edges in the study area: one softer edge along

Lynch Analysis: Edges Brookline and Sidney Streets which creates a lateral reference between the residential district and the rest of the study area; and the Grand Junction Railroad, a stronger edge that forms a boundary between the study area and the rest of MIT’s West Campus.

Distinctive physical characteristics might include ‘thematic continuities’ including texture, space, form, detail, symbol and building. The project team found it challenging to clearly differentiate districts within the study area. The most evidently identifiable district was the residential section, given its Districts distinctive architectural character and overall Districts are sections of a city with common neighborhood ambiance. Other districts characteristics that make them identifiable were more difficult to discern, though the from the inside and useful for exterior team was able to distinguish some district reference if visible from the outside. characteristics upon learning about the

Lynch Analysis: Districts range of building and land use types during the walking tour. The other four districts identified include the areas anchored by the neighborhood parks (Fort Washington and Pacific Park), the MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE) research cluster along Albany Street, the MIT graduate residence halls along Pacific Street, and the collection of biotech firms along Sidney and Waverly Streets.

31

Land Use & Activity Cambridgeport is primarily a high-density residential community scaled by its two- and three-story houses, with commercial activity concentrated along the northern edge on Massachusetts Avenue and Central Square.

The study area covers the southern portion of the neighborhood-South Cambridgeport, which abuts MIT’s Northwest Campus and the Grand Junction Railroad. This section is characterized by several former industrial and warehouse buildings, and has experienced a significant amount of new real estate development, including residential, retail, office, laboratory and institutional uses. Many of the new development projects have renovated and repurposed the area’s collection of industrial-era structures. The new developments have raised community concerns about the impact of new activites and businesses on the residential character of the neighborhood. More broadly, the City of Cambridge has been experiencing an upsurge of housing costs and the saturation of the local residential market.

between Brookline Street and the railroad tracks comprises various land uses. Use categories in South Cambridgeport include a range of residential and mixed-use options, commercial, office, research and development, industrial, transportation, and educational uses. At the same time, current zoning and floor area ratio (FAR) allowances in this area suggest an inclination to ensure that new development projects are compatible in scale with the heights and setbacks of the abutting neighborhood, to promote gradual transition to residential uses, and to create new and enhance existing open spaces.

Residential Uses The majority of Cambridgeport’s one-tothree family residences are located north of Brookline Street. Brookline thus acts as a transition between the residential zoning districts that are generally developed to The 100 Landsdowne Apartments low scale residential uses, and the South Cambridgeport district closer to MIT, which is student housing to luxury condominiums. comprised of larger land parcels and buildings The Putnam Green residential complex at with greater footprints.

625 Putnam Avenue, for instance, offers 40 Whereas the broader Cambridgeport affordable rental units and 28 below-grade neighborhood is mainly zoned for residential This section includes a range of residential parking spaces. This sustainable affordable use, the area closest to the main MIT campus options, from affordable apartments to housing project was completed in 2012 by

32

Public Realm Key elements of the broader Cambridgeport community are its distinctive tree-lined streets and the network of small parks nestled within the residential areas. The notably public open spaces in the neighborhood include Pacific Street Park near University Park, Fort Washington Park between the railroad tracks and Waverly Street, Old Morse Park near Brookline and Allston Streets, Fulmore Park between Peters and Sidney Streets, Richard Parrow Park between Brookline and Hastings Street, and Magazine Beach Park across Memorial Drive on the River Charles bend.

In addition to these public parks, University Park Commons provides additional public realm for the community, though several residents have expressed that the space feels restricted and not welcoming to the public. There is also a wide tree-lined bike and pedestrian path between Ashdown House and Sidney-Pacific that connects Pacific and Erie Streets. Some community gardens are also present in the neighborhood, including the Peggy Hayes Memorial Garden and Emily Garden.

Homeowners Rehab Inc. in partnership with the City and Affordable Housing Trust. Just across Brookline Street on Erie Street are the L.B. Johnson Apartments, a high-rise public housingdevelopment consisting of 180 units for senior residents. The Cambridge Housing Authority recently completed a major retrofit of the LBJ Apartments, which included the installation of a solar air heating system.

Meanwhile, MIT has four graduate housing residences in the area housing over 950 students, namely Sidney-Pacific at 70 Pacific Street, Ashdown House at 235 Albany Street, and The Warehouse at 224 Albany Street.

Simmons Hall across the railroad tracks on Vassar Street houses 340 undergraduate students. In addition, the area is attracting a growing number of market-rate and highpriced housing complexes, particularly along Sidney Street, that cater to affluent families and young professionals. Among these are Chroma Apartments, a 96-unit upscale rental community that opened in 2015, and four luxury rental apartment buildings at University Park: 91 Sidney, KBL, Loft23, and 100 Landsdowne. At eighteen stories, 100 Landsdowne is the tallest residential building in Cambridge.

33

Land Use & Activity MIT’s Footprint In addition to graduate student residences, MIT also owns several other properties in the study area. These sites include properties that are actively in use for academic, office, research, administrative and investment purposes. Additionally, some parcels are currently used as parking lots, while others remain vacant. In total, these properties comprise a significant total ground square footage in the study area and represent a notable institutional footprint along the southern edge of the neighborhood.

identify sites for new building initiatives, taking into account the needs of current users, neighbors, and potential new users.

Commercial and Retail Among the biotech and pharmaceutical firms that have established facilities in and around the study area are Genzyme Corp., Boston Biomedical, Intellia, Acceleron, Idera, Novartis and Takeda (see Appendix C for a full list of commercial actors). As mentioned, several of these are based in MIT-owned properties.

Other commercial and retail actors are also The Plasma Science & Fusion Center, Francis growing their presence in the area, including Bitter Magnet Lab, and Nuclear Reactor a range of medical service providers and tech Lab are among the academic/research and startup firms. programs in the area, while Campus Planning, Facilities, Campus Construction, Campus There are few neighborhood retail shops and Dining, Residential Life Programs and other restaurants outside of the Massachusetts administrative offices are also based in South Avenue corridor, though a small hub Cambridgeport. MIT further holds investment of commercial activity is evident at the real estate properties in the area that are intersection of Brookline and Putnam Ave. leased for other uses, including facilities leased The newest food establishment in the to biotech and pharmaceutical firms as well neighborhood is a Flour Bakery & Café located as smaller companies. As the Institute copes on the ground level of the Biomed Sydney with the increased demand for additional or Research Campus at 40 Erie Street. Given repurposed space on campus, the Northwest the growing residential and business activity Campus sector presents an opportunity to in the neighborhood, the demand for more

34

food and retail shops beyond Massachusetts Avenue is likely to continue to grow in the coming years.

on Vassar Street near Simmons Hall. Also near Simmons is CASPAR’s Emergency Service Center and Shelter at 240 Albany Street.

CASPAR is a community-based nonprofit

provider of treatment for individuals and families who have been affected by substance abuse and related issues such as homelessness or mental illness.

Other Activities In addition to the range of residential and commercial activities, some creative industries are also present in the Cambridgeport neighborhood. Gallery 263, Blanc Gallery and Haines Sculpture are among the art spaces in the area, while Intersection Associates and New Alliance Audio provide a variety of media and audio/visual services. Meanwhile, MIT is relocating its Theater Arts Program into a rejuvenated former warehouse on Vassar Street, opening in 2017. The new location will create rehearsal spaces, design and faculty studios, costume and scene design shops, dressing rooms, and a two-story theater performance space, enabling a substantial performance arts curriculum.

The neighborhood is also home to the Morse School, a primary school along Memorial Drive and Granite Street. In addition, local childcare facilities include the Cambridgeport Children’s Center (“Tot Lot”) on Chestnut Street and MIT’s Koch Childcare Center located

Land Use Overview

35

Transit & Connectivity Cambridgeport’s boundaries are defined by four very distinct borders. To the north, Massachusetts Avenue provides an active commercial and transportation corridor connecting Central Square to MIT and Boston.

River Street, the western edge, is mostly a residential corridor with little commercial activity, although it has consistent multimodal traffic as it provides a key path from Central Square over the Charles River and into Allston. Meanwhile, the southern stretch of Cambridgeport is enclosed by Memorial Drive and the Charles River beyond it. And to the north, the neighborhood is bordered by the Grand Junction Railroad track and MIT’s campus across the tracks. The study area is quite accessible by foot, bike, car or public transit from Central Square, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Kendall Square and even the Boston University area across the river.

Cross-railroad connectivity Over the past several decades, the Grand Junction Railroad tracks have significantly influenced the spatial development of the Institute, former industrial actors, and present-day commercial and development activity. The railroad tracks create a sharp boundary between West Campus and the abutting Cambridgeport community—a

36

continual barrier interrupted only a few times by crossing paths across the tracks.

The existing cross-railroad pedestrian and bicycle connections are from Fort Washington Park towards West Lot, and from Pacific Street across to MIT’s Briggs Athletic Field.

In addition, there is a building overpass connecting West Garage (Building W45) to Building NW20.

Public Transit South Cambridgeport is in close proximity to a number of bus lines and is within walking distance of two key subway lines. Despite these public transit options, however, the study area does not feel easily accessible to major activity centers, and feels especially distant when traveling there by foot.

For one, few of the area’s bus routes actually pass through the neighborhood. Besides the busy No. 1 bus line that runs along Massachusetts Avenue, other nearby routes include the No. 47, connecting Cambridge to South Boston via Magazine Street and the BU Bridge; the No. 62, which connects Kendall Square to Brighton; the No. 70, which starts at University Park and extends west towards Waltham; and the CT2, which travels along Vassar Street as it links Somerville

to Boston. Meanwhile, both the Red Line and Green Line have stops within a mile of South Cambridgeport, but they too appear somewhat far from the study area. As an example, Fort Washington Park is equidistant from both the Central Square Red Line station along Massachusetts Avenue and the Boston University Green Line station across the BU Bridge. A walk from the park to either station is approximately 0.8 miles. While this distance may not seem significant, the twenty minute walk to reach the stations can feel excessive, particularly given the lack of activated streets along the way.

Automobile Transport In addition to public transit, the study area is bound by major streets that enable automobile connections from Cambridge to Somerville and Boston. Namely, Memorial Drive is a major thoroughfare that borders a significant portion of the neighborhood and MIT campus longitudinally. The avenue also offers views towards the Charles River and Boston. Furthermore, the area’s streets are characterized by a street grid pattern that allows north-west and south-east vehicular flow throughout the neighborhood.

In addition to the proximate bus lines and T stops, several streets in South Cambridgeport are lined with bike paths, mainly those connecting Massachusetts Avenue to the Charles River. There are three Hubway bike stations in the study area with a total of sixty available bikes: one on Vassar Street across West Lot, another on Pacific Street in front of the Sidney-Pacific Graduate Residence, and the most recently added station in front of the new Flour Bakery & Café at 40 Erie Street.

Travel Time to Nearest Transit Access Locations (credit: R Campos)

37

Goals ..................MIT’s Program Needs ........Community & City Priorities .........Project Vision & Principles

MIT’s Program Needs

Estimated Types and Amount of Uses to be Accommodated on NW Campus (developed by OCP for the purpose of this practicum) Administration Facilities & Service

MIT Medical Academic & Research Graduate Housing Innovation Ecosystem (Commercial Use) Public Realm Parking

40

50,000 - 65,000 GSF 85,000 - 100,000 GSF (Other administrative groups associated with facilities service group include MIT Police, Environment, Health, and Safety Office, Office of Security Operations, and Office of Emergency Management and Business Continuity) 80,000 GSF 100,000 - 200,000 GSF 450 to 600 beds 25,000 - 125,000 GSF As Desired Although it is not necessary to provide parking immediately adjacent to the above uses, 60 spaces need to be in close proximity to MIT Police, and a lot of approximately 20,000 sf must be located adjacent to the service facilities. Additionally, the Recycling Lot and 290 Albany St Lot are service and storage lots whose function need to be maintained – though they may be relocated if desired.

Beyond graduate housing, MIT has also identified additional space needs to carry out its academic mission, including classroom space, labs and research facilities totaling up to 200,000 GSF. Space is also needed for support functions such as administrative offices (65,000 GSF), campus facilities and Additional graduate student housing vehicle space (100,000 GSF). in the study area was a top priority of MIT stakeholders as well as community Innovation is also an integral part of MIT’s members during the public meetings. More mission, and the program request included housing is also the largest spatial need in 25,000 GSF to further expand the Institute’s the Institute’s Northwest Campus program, innovation ecosystem by adding makerspaces, which estimates 600 additional student beds, innovation centers, and other interactive roughly equivalent to 240,000 gross square creative spaces in the study area. feet (GSF). Providing additional housing options would satisfy a large unmet demand Some optional considerations were also among MIT graduate students, while also presented. One was to expand the innovation helping to relieve housing pressure around ecosystem to a more significant 125,000 GSF. Cambridgeport by reducing the number of Another was to move the MIT Medical services students seeking homes through the local to Northwest Campus (about 80,000 GSF).

Finally, the team was asked to incorporate rental market.4.1 MIT’s mission is multifaceted, and its spatial and functional needs reflect this complexity.

The Institute’s Office of Campus Planning provided detailed information to support the team’s project, including approximate square footages needed for various uses.

public open space where possible, as it is of great importance to both campus users and the wider public.

Solving these spatial needs is crucial for any future development of MIT’s Northwest Campus, but as the two alternative scenarios in Chapter V demonstrate, there are many different ways to do so.

41

Community & City Priorities Neighborhood Identity & Design Character During the Design Character breakout session, three main themes were discussed: neighborhood identity, design elements that could influence identity, and the nature of the relationship between MIT, residents and corporate/retail entities.

In terms of design elements, one resident suggested that that in order to keep residential areas quiet and “peaceful,” dorms, retail areas and well-lit developments should be kept to the eastern side of the parcel. More broadly in terms of improving the “towngown” relationship, residents suggested that graduate students be actively involved with the community, through activities such as One major finding was that some residents day-care services, educational volunteering were concerned over what they perceived to be and community lunches.

MIT’s attempts to expand into Cambridgeport, particularly in light of the controversy Public Realm around the conversion of former industrial In terms of public realm, three main themes In addition to the community meeting, the properties, majority of which were owned by were discussed: open space, streetscape, and 11.360 team designed and developed an the Simplex Wire and Cable Company into the the connectivity to West Campus. interactive website on which those interested existing University Park. Residents provided could post comments, share suggestions and a brief overview of their experiences with On the topic of open space networks, residents identity places and landmarks relevant to the Simplex Steering Committee during the greatly appreciated improvements to parks their needs and aspirations, on a user-friendly late 1980s. In response to such concern, an by the City of Cambridge that had planned the map.

MIT representative present at the table noted improvements by considering each individual that the this practicum only included plans open space area as part of a broader network.

The findings of our community engagement for properties that are already owned by MIT. Some residents and MIT representatives felt initiatives were as follows: Additionally, the representative also pointed that the Pacific Street Park was not as active out that the purpose of initiating this class as intended, perhaps due to a lack of strong project was to build trust, listen to the needs residential community around it, and perhaps and the aspirations of residents and develop due to the variety of different permitted uses making it less cohesive. win-win proposals.

The first community meeting conducted by the 11.360 class team was held on November 2nd 2016 at MIT Sidney-Pacific Graduate Residence. The event was conveniently located within the confines of the study area, and was attended by approximately 20 people, representing the Cambridgeport community, MIT and other stakeholders. The community meeting featured a presentation detailing the goals and objectives of the 11.360 team, and also included a breakout session designed to capture the aspirations and needs of various stakeholders.

42

To this end, some residents opined that the design of open space needed to be more sensitive to users: Alberico Park, located at the intersection of Allston and Pleasant Streets, for instance has fencing that actually makes it unsafe for small children. Some residents also expressed a need for more community gardens and urban agriculture.

They also opined that for open spaces in the study area, designers needed to consider the demographics and surrounding land use to inform the types of activities to be planned for.

In terms of activities within such open spaces, long-term residents fondly recalled MIT students organizing activities in Cambridgeport and interacting with families and kids; they suggested that there is a need for more 24/7 activities in open spaces with the active involvement of the MIT community.

City of Cambridge Priorities The City of Cambridge’s Community Development Department (CDD) shared information about the city’s zoning strategy and the priorities of its residents and planners. One major priority is the same as MIT’s: a significant increase in graduate housing. Another priority for the city is to integrate any new ideas with the existing plans and studies. Finally, a frequent request of both planners and residents is for more open space, including access to the nearby Charles River if possible.

Land Use Planning In terms of land use planning, residents and MIT representatives expressed the need for better integration of MIT and local residents, through establishing and utilizing studentoccupied innovation centers/labs; featuring theater, music, other performances from MIT departments; and incorporating and MITsponsored art activities and installations on Magazine Beach and other public spaces.

Other topics discussed included: the lack of destination place in the study area to be able to create an active public realm and the lack of Some residents sought increased vibrancy gathering spaces for the community such as in the form of more cafes and restaurants as well as more retail stores. However, others community centers and auditoriums. prioritized safety, comfort and community,

through measures such as providing opportunities for more nighttime activity (for safety), creating a buffer between technology companies and residents (to mitigate noise impact), and building more affordable housing. Some residents were also wary of and disturbed by what they considered “massive” buildings.

In terms of uses of space, residents supported the idea of temporary or flexible uses, such as pop-up garden, food trucks, marketplace stalls.

43

Community & City Heading Priorities Notes from Project Website • Acknowledge ownership of the cooperative community garden on Emily Street, by gardeners who have gardened on this land for 42 years.

• Enhance Auburn Park, located in University Park, with more seating and play sculptures as well as a welcoming atmosphere.

• Redevelop Pacific/Brookline empty lots, as per neighborhood plan developed in a Community Development Department (CDD) planning process 15-20 years ago.

• Redevelop Erie/Brookline and Sydney/ Hamilton empty lots, ideally for construction of affordable housing • Don’t ignore the Albany Street Shelter for the homeless: need to provide a long term lease to CASPAR so that they can be secure in providing a vital service to the community.

• Improve the Pacific Street Rail crossing • Acknowledge and secure the relevance of Fort Washington Park as an important meeting place for dog owners who want to have dogs off leash.

44

Project Vision & Principles Vision Statement By carefully studying the aspirations and the needs of the Cambridgeport community, MIT’s Office of Campus Planning, and the City of Cambridge, the 11.360 team developed an inclusive vision statement, as follows:

Comment Map on the Project Website

Cambridgeport is a scenic neighborhood with rich history, a variety of amenities, and a strong local character. We want to build on the neighborhood’s unique strengths in order to enable its full potential to develop. This, we believe, will ensure Cambridgeport’s continuing vibrancy and ability to meet the needs of its residents, MIT and other stakeholders for many years to come.

45

Project Vision & Principles Heading Project Principles In support of this overall Vision, the team identified six project principles in order to guide the development of potential scenarios:

We support a public realm, design elements and activities that provide opportunities for Cambridgeport residents, members of the MIT community, and other stakeholders, to come together.

The spirit of MIT is rooted in its mission of “Mind and Hand,” that seeks to foster creativity and innovation that has practical benefits for all. We seek to strongly incorporate MIT’s mission in the future scenarios for the Northwest Campus. We aim to propose physical and programmatic infrastructures that will allow the Institute to expand its mission.

46

Interweaving

Livability

Equity and Shared Benefits

Mens et Manus

We envision a neighborhood that offers a diversity of transportation options. A neighborhood should be easily accessible and traversable by foot, bicycle, and public transit, while maintaining vehicular traffic at a sustainable level. .

We envision a vibrant neighborhood that offers different kinds of activities and environments, during different times of the day, in accordance with the aspirations and the needs of those who reside there. We support a neighborhood full of thoughtful streetscape design, including trees, benches, appropriate lighting, wayfinding and other amenities.

Mobility

Building Community

We believe that MIT should strive to further the value of equity. Thus, we believe that benefits resulting from the development of MIT properties should be shared with those in need to the extent possible. Real-life examples include affordable housing and involvement of MIT community members in programs that benefit the neighborhood.

We believe that a neighborhood’s unique character is enhanced by its community members. We envision a neighborhood with a strong community that includes both Cambridge residents as well as MIT members.

Furthermore, we support the existing community members’ right to have a meaningful say in any changes or developments that affect them, and we seek to foster a climate of collaboration, friendliness, and understanding among all stakeholders.

47

Future Scenarios ..............................Catalyst Sites ...........................Zoning Analysis ..........................Scenario #1:Arts .............Scenario #2:Innovation

Th ay

Th e

r

e Hu

b

ate

w

G

Anc

ho

Th e

Catalyst Sites Key Locations Before developing alternative scenarios, the team considered the study area as a whole and thought about key locations that would be important in any vision. Analyzing the design character of the study area through Kevin Lynch’s city elements (see Design Character in Chapter III, Existing Conditions) revealed the following three sites that became the foundation for subsequent scenario development.

The Hub This intersection is currently surrounded by several vacant lots. It makes an ideal node for linking the area’s assets. Users of the bike path between Sidney-Pacific and Ashdown, the graduate dorm residents, the Fort Washington and Pacific Street Open Space, MIT’s West Campus, and any future developments in the neighborhood would all cross paths here.

Well-designed public space should be prominent.

The Anchor These parcels are ideally located for knitting together MIT and the local community.

Currently occupied by pharmaceutical companies, this site’s future could include a more public use of the space that would improve activity levels in the area, provide more diverse uses, and catalyze further development. Care must be taken to minimize noise and traffic impacts on residents, and to scale buildings appropriately.

The Gateway This parcel, famous for its role in the landmark 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case Nectow v.

City of Cambridge, is currently a warehouse and minor postal facility. Its position at the campus/neighborhood border, near major throughways such as the BU Bridge and Memorial Drive, makes it ideal for a more prominent “gateway” use that reflects the unique identities of MIT and the neighborhood, and welcomes those entering the area.

50

51

Zoning Analysis The 15 sites selected for the zoning diagnostic are either empty plots, surface parking, or seemingly underutilized parcels the team noticed during the initial walking tour. All the parcels are zoned in special districts whose permitted uses do not prohibit any of the MIT program needs laid out in Chapter IV. The SD-6 is zoned for multifamily residential buildings and allows a limited amount of office space. The SD-8 and SD-8A zones allow for dormitory and residential uses as well as industrial uses under certain conditions. As for SD-10F and SD-10H, both zones encourage intensive housing with a focus on affordable housing while also conditionally allowing mixing housing with uses such as office and retail.

Based on the dimensional requirements of the zoned districts, the as-of-right maximum build out was estimated and compared to the maximum gross square footage of the MIT program needs. This initial zoning diagnostic indicates the estimated allowable as-of-right build out of about 1,332,370 GSF exceeds the range of MIT program needs (including the optional ones like medical facilities) that amount to 780,000 GSF. The following Arts and Innovation scenarios account for this comparison in square footages in proposing

52

programs for different parcels. The Arts Scenario will manage to distribute the program needs across the selected parcels and remain within the allowable as-of-right build out.

The Innovation scenario will consider a build-out scenario that would exceed height restrictions, setbacks, and parking requirements under existing zoning ordinance and will therefore consider zoning amendment mechanisms, specifically the Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Parcels Included in Zoning Diagnostic

ID Lot Name

Address

Zone

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7

Albany + Mass Ave 134 Mass Ave Vassar Waverly + Chestnut 129-167 Waverly 65 Waverly Street 258 Albany 258 Albany

SD-6 SD-6 SD-6 SD-8A SD-8A SD-8A SD-8 SD-8

8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15

Mass Ave Parking Metropolitan Warehouse West Parking Garage California Paints FW Park West FW Park East Albany Lot A (top 3 floors) Albany Lot A (ground floor) Albany Lot B Pacific Parking Hub Triangle Anchor Site (Top 4 floors) Anchor Site (ground floor) North Lot West Lot Gateway Site Waverly Lot TOTAL

288 Albany Pacific + Albany Erie + Albany 128-150 Sidney 128-150 Sidney 25 Tudor - 130 Brookline 59-75 Hamilton 350 Brookline 2 Waverly

SD-8 SD-8 SD-8 SD-8 SD-8 SD-10(H) SD-10(H) SD-10(F) SD-10(F)

Lot size (Sq Ft) FAR

18,600 46,100 41,700 61,500 57,700 48,950 50,050

3 3 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

53,800 29,400 38,950 126,600

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

48,250 20,650 70,600 34,000

747,000

As-of-Right Maximum Buildout of Selected Parcels

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Max GSF (est.)

55,800 138,300 125,100 92,250 86,600 73,400 56,300 18,700 80,700 44,100 58,450 151,950 38,000 28,950 12,400 42,350 20,400

1,123,850

53

Scenario #1: Arts

Arts: Motivation The idea for using art and performance to seed development of the neighborhood was inspired by comments made by local residents at the initial community workshop.

Participants expressed an interest in MIT’s arts and performance activities, but noted that despite its geographical proximity, poor physical connections across the railroad tracks made it difficult to reach the campus.

Thus the residents proposed to bring MIT’s arts community out into the neighborhood instead.

This idea is provocative because it could fulfill multiple aspirations of both the Institute and the community simultaneously.

First, it could further MIT’s mens et manus mission by building on its rich history of cultural innovation. MIT is already home to a huge variety of student- and facultyled performance groups, from marching bands and classical choirs to South Asian dance troupes and African drummers, not to mention its community of visual artists.

Creating a physically concentrated home for these rich activities in the Northwest Campus would not only give prominence to a part of MIT’s identity that is often less well-known than its engineering and research activities, but also instill a strong sense of uniqueness lacking in the Northwest Campus.

Further, it would fulfill the desires of both community members and the City for a more active neighborhood with diverse amenities and unique character – the project’s goal of “livability.” Artists embedded in the community could produce public art, fill galleries, and sell crafts locally. Performances by music and theater groups would provide cultural amenities to local residents and draw in new visitors, while also increasing safety by activating the neighborhood during evening hours.

Finally, an MIT arts district would also fulfill the project’s goals of building community, interweaving MIT with the community. Local residents could enjoy the fruits of students’ artistic work, and could also participate in collaborative artistic ventures such as community makerspaces.

Of course, in order to thrive, the neighborhood should feature multiple types of activities, so the arts-focused scenario also includes a variety of commercial and other uses, in addition to arts and MIT’s other needs.

MIT Performance Groups

57

Arts: Activity & Density Before parcels were considered on an individual basis, a framework was established of the desired general activity levels and building densities. Less active uses and lower building densities were envisioned for the north and west portions of the study area, in order to match the neighboring residential communities. Busier uses and higher densities

Arts: Land Use Creative Uses Creative uses are the heart of the arts scenario. One of the scenario’s key spatial aspects is the presence of MIT’s new theater building on Vassar Street, only a few feet from Cambridgeport but separated by an uncrossable railway. By adding access infrastructure, such as a pedestrian flyover bridge, the two areas could be linked and MIT’s arts could “spill” across the tracks and into the neighborhood.

were envisioned for the south and east, in order to match the adjoining portions of MIT’s campus. This approach has the advantage of generating strong neighborhood activity while sheltering existing residents from any increases in traffic or noise. It also aligns well with the City’s existing zoning.

The triangular lot south of Waverly would be a good fit for a performance space for students from the nearby theater building, or from one of MIT’s many performance groups.

Use of outdoor seating there, for example by using an amphiteather design, would become a valuable addition to the neighborhood’s existing open space network, including Fort Washington Park next door.

Art Scenario: Density Levels

58

Art Scenario: Activity Levels

The Gateway site at Waverly and Brookline is envisioned as a collaborative arts makerspace, where individual artists from MIT and the local community could share tools, equipment and common working space. The Somerville Artisan’s Asylum is a good precedent for this. Including startups or other commercial ventures nearby

could generate further opportunities for collaboration, such as between entrepreneurs and graphic artists, or between architecture firms and sculptors. And using the lot to the south as open space would allow for a locally-

produced art park, or festival grounds. This kind of cross-disciplinary creative activity would well represent the identity of both MIT and the local community at the Gateway.

Academic/ Innovation

Performance Space

Arts Makerspace & Entrepreneurs Theater Building (existing)

Art Park/Festival Grounds

Art Scenario: Creative Uses

59

Arts: Land Use Academic & Facilities Uses The parking structure on Vassar Street is shown as a potential place to serve MIT’s facility needs, due to its proximity to athletic fields and its apparent ability to handle steady volumes of traffic. The lots at 75 Hamilton are small, but otherwise suitable for facilities space as well, as they are currently occupied by automotive services. The Metropolitan Warehouse at the corner of Vassar and Massachusetts Avenue was once considered for student housing but quickly deemed unsuitable. However, its large floor plates would work for academic research purposes, similar to the physics and engineering labs already nearby.

The L-shaped lot at Chestnut and Waverly, frequently referred to as the “California Paints building” thanks to its well-known former tenant, is envisioned here as a space for MIT’s academic and innovation activities to co-locate. For example, although MIT’s new entrepreneurial venture The Engine will soon have a permanent home in Central Square, this site could host the School of Architecture and Planning’s (SA+P’s) DesignX venture accelerator, as well as design-focused innovation courses from SA+P and elsewhere.

60

Finally, the densely-zoned lot at 258 Albany could provide much of MIT’s need for offices and administrative space. It would be a nice environment to work if the other amenities

envisioned for the neighborhood as part of this scenario come to fruition. In addition, including retail, services, or dining on the ground floor would further diversify the building’s use and enhance the area.

Facilities/Grounds

Academic/Innovation

Campus Offices & Light Retail

Art Scenario: Academic & Facilities Uses

Academic/ Research

It should be noted that this lot is next to the CASPAR Emergency Service Center (ESC), which provides shelter for people in need, and is a source of both pride and concern among the community. ESC has the following to say about its relationship with MIT and the community: “The ESC has strong ties to the community, including Cambridge and Somerville hospitals and police departments, who view the ESC as a partner in reducing harm on the streets. In addition, the ESC enjoys a special relationship with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which built the shelter for CASPAR on MIT property in 1994.”

locally-owned stores and restaurants on the ground floor. As with mixed-use developments in general, this would meet MIT’s need for additional graduate housing while keeping the street level vibrant and interesting, and would ensure an active neighborhood at many different times of day to improve vibrancy and safety.

The development would be attractive to commercial interests. The dense population of graduate students would provide a customer base, supplemented by local residents, and also by the large number of anticipated visitors who would come to the neighborhood specifically for its unique artistic activities.

Housing Meanwhile, increased activity due to retail and In this scenario, additional graduate housing dining would itself make the neighborhood is concentrated near existing dormitories in more attractive for both residents and artists. order to create a tight graduate community.

This graduate residential population would The Anchor site at 150 Sidney is large, and also have the additional effect of providing is in a relatively permissive zone, so makes a built-in audience for local performances, an attractive place for denser development exhibits, and art markets, thus supporting the and more mixed-use than the current light arts scene as well. In this way, art, housing industry. In this case, the site could support and commerce can work together to mutually much of MIT’s graduate housing needs on the support one other, making each use more top floors, while providing amenities such as effective than it would be on its own.

The site at 130 Brookline, in the northern portion of the study area, is envisioned as housing for graduate families, in order to make a smooth transition from campus uses to quieter, more residential uses. Additional graduate housing could be put on the lot at 288 Albany and would gain a minor as-ofright density bonus by doing so.

61

Arts: Land Use Sidney-Pacific

New Graduate Family Residence

(existing graduate residence)

Ashdown House

(existing graduate residence)

The Warehouse

(existing graduate residence)

Simmons Hall (existing undergraduate residence)

New Graduate Residence & Retail/Dining

Westgate

(existing graduate family residence)

Tang Hall

New Graduate Residence

(existing graduate residence)

Art Scenario: Housing

62

Open Space This scenario includes new open space in order to enhance the public realm, and to mitigate the density of proposed new buildings. Since the neighborhood already has existing open space assets in the form of several excellent parks, the scenario focuses on complementing them by proposing alternative types of open spaces.

The rounded triangular lot at the corner of Erie and Albany Streets is an ideal location for a public plaza, as it sits at the Hub site: the place where students, employees, customers, residents, and MIT faculty and staff will all cross paths. Amenities such as plants, good lighting, benches, fountains, and raised crosswalks would create an enjoyable central plaza that unites the diverse users of all the surrounding buildings.

The lot at 65 Waverly, adjacent to Fort Washington Park, is here envisioned as a combination of open space and retail. Various parts of the lot could host open-air markets, perhaps including entrepreneurial artists from the nearby makerspace. Food trucks would be a popular amenity, especially with

nearby graduate students but also with users of the park next door. Furthermore, this lot’s location near an at-grade crossing of the railroad track would ensure a steady flow of pedestrian traffic and customers. Such a use of the space would be highly flexible and light on infrastructure, allowing the site to be programmed for a festival, a night market, or even to accommodate overflow parking, depending on the needs of the moment.

Anchor site. The former are essential in order to mitigate the divisive nature of the railroad tracks, and allow better access between MIT’s West Campus and Cambridgeport. Two existing at-grade crossings are functional, but are in urgent need of improvements such as lighting, wayfinding and better materials.

Additional at-grade crossings are unlikely to be allowed, but as noted under “Arts”, a pedestrian bridge near the theater building would serve the same function well. So would Both of these new open spaces would be an a hypothetical bridge from the Metropolitan excellent complement to an arts-focused Warehouse building to the other side of the neighborhood. A well-designed plaza would tracks. make the streets safer, more pleasant, and better connected, thus encouraging both The pedestrian path is an important aspect of artists and visitors to linger in the area. And the mixed dormitory-and-retail use proposed a flexible, active, outdoor market space would for the Anchor site. Because of this site’s not only provide space for artists to sell their central location between different areas, it is wares, but it would also be an attractive essential that any new buildings allow access amenity of its own and would bring in outside through the lot. For example, a pedestrian alley visitors, including potential customers or lined with retail would be an amenity of its performance attendees. own, but more importantly it would establish a vital link between the wider neighborhood Circulation and the proposed activity centers closer to Key elements of the scenario’s circulation campus. concept are the rail crossings and the midblock pedestrian path proposed for the

63

Arts: Land Use Old Morse Park

Pacific Street Open Space (existing)

(existing)

Streetscape Improvements

Pedestrian Access

(lined with retail and other active uses)

Central Plaza

Art Park/Festival Grounds

Elevated Footbridge

Fort Washington Park (existing)

Art Scenario: Open Space

64

Food Trucks & Art Markets

Improved Crossings Art Scenario: Circulation

65

Arts: Possible Massings These drawings are not intended to show fully designed buildings. Rather, they are sketches demonstrating the general scale and height that buildings could have, given the Floor Area Ratio and maximum height indicated for each lot in the existing Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. There are many possible configurations other than those shown here.

Existing Cambridge buildings are shown in gray for context.

Arts Scenario: Closeup of the Hub and Anchor Sites

Arts Scenario: Overview of Possible Massings

66

67

Arts: Use Summary Unlike the next scenario, Innovation, the Arts scenario does not advocate for any changes to existing zoning. It is true that there is a strong argument for increasing allowable density on the Gateway site at Waverly and Brookline beyond the meager 0.6 FAR currently allowed.

That site already sits on a major thoroughfare (Brookline Street), neighbors a much denser building (Boston Biomedical), and is not too close to residential neighbors. Nevertheless, this scenario achieves its spatial goals under the assumption that the existing zoning ordinance will remain unchanged.

This chart indicates the total square footage that would result for each type of use, assuming that each lot in the scenario is built out to the maximum amount of square footage allowed under current zoning, and assigned to the uses indicated in the scenario.

Note that these are only estimates, and the numbers shown here could vary significantly depending on the specific choice of building configurations or mix of uses.

Also note that for the purposes of this estimate, the lot at 65 Waverly envisioned as an outdoor marketplace is here counted as open space, not as commercial space. For

68

mixed-use buildings with retail, the ground floor is counted as retail and the rest as the additional use. For other mixed-use buildings, the total gross square footage is divided evenly between the uses. The provision for “facilities” space is higher than the estimated amount by the Client because of the recycling and parking operations currently located at 65 Waverly, which would be displaced in this scenario. Figures in the chart are shown rounded to the nearest 50 square feet.

Overview This graphic shows all the elements of the vision in one place. Note that higher density and activity is clustered close to campus, the Gateway site invites people to think of the neighborhood’s (and MIT’s) creative side, and the Hub helps link everything together.

Finally, the Anchor site is active and mixeduse, and features a through-way linking the MIT and neighborhood communities.

The Anchor: Graduate Dorms & Retail/ Dining

The Gateway: Arts Makerspace & Entrepreneurs

The Hub: Central Plaza Arts Scenario: Summary of Uses (in Gross Square Feet) Use Academic & Research Administration Facilities & Services Graduate Housing Innovation Arts & Makerspaces Open Space (lot area only) Retail & Dining

Scenario - Full Buildout 184,000 GSF 72,000 138,000 237,000 67,000 130,000 92,000 144,000

Client Request 100,000 to 200,000 50,000 to 65,000 85,000 to 100,000 180,000 to 240,000 25,000 to 125,000 none as desired none

The Hub: Food Trucks & Art Markets

Arts Scenario: The Complete Vision

69

Scenario #2: Innovation 71

Innovation: Motivation The innovation scenario stems from and reinforces the six project principles. In particular, this scenario uses innovation as a central concept for interweaving the Cambridgeport neighborhood and MIT. New buildings and programs, such as additional makerspaces and a community center, will not only establish an innovation ecosystem that is unique to the Northwest Campus but also help to build a strong sense of shared community.

The scenario also ensures that the access and the benefits of the proposed innovation ecosystem be shared among all members of this tight-knit community. Other aspects of the scenario also focus on strengthening the livability of the neighborhood, which is also a requisite in creating and sustaining innovation.

This scenario also attempts to foster MIT’s motto of mens et manus that is reflected in some of the Institute’s most recent initiatives.

First, the launch of the Campaign for a Better World furthers MIT’s commitment to address society’s most pressing challenges thanks to research, education, and innovation. The campaign will promote innovation and entrepreneurship by supporting budding innovators, helping to turn their ideas into reality. A complementary initiative is

the launch of the Engine in 2016, an MIT venture that will provide funding, space and mentorship to solidify and expand innovation networks. The Engine is now located on Massachusetts Avenue across the intersection with Brookline Street.

It is also important to note the innovative contributions that residents of and near the Cambridgeport neighborhood have made over the centuries. Some notable innovators include Alvan Clark who lived on the

Nectow parcel—located at the Waverly and Brookline Streets intersection—advanced the field of astronomy thanks to his work on telescope lenses. Elias Howe, who lived at the corner of Norfolk and Austin Streets, invented the sewing machine in the 1840s.

With the innovation scenario in this plan, the Cambridgeport neighborhood will remain vital contributors to the innovation ecosystem as part of the interwoven community with MIT.

Fort Washington Park

73

Innovation: Activity & Density Similarly to the Arts scenario, a framework for projected activity and density levels was conceived before focusing on individual parcels. The anticipated activity levels echo the design character analysis in Chapter III, Existing Conditions. High to moderate activity levels are expected around potential and existing nodes as well as potential paths.

The Anchor site close to the residential

neighborhood will have moderate activity levels. The expected densities will match the projected activity levels. The highest densities will be concentrated around the Fort Washington node and Hub site.

Innovation Scenario: Activity Levels

74

Innovation Scenario: Density Levels

Innovation: Land Use Spaces for Innovation To create an innovative spirit in the study area, the team proposes a variety of spaces to cater to a wide range of uses. The primary beneficiaries of these spaces will be Cambridgeport residents, MIT affiliates, and small to mid-size firms.

The heart of MIT’s mens et manus motto is that innovation arises from experimenting and learning by doing. Accordingly, the Institute has created makerspaces across the campus to provide a propitious environment to interact with fellow innovators, exchange ideas, and gain new skills. During the roundtable discussion with staff from various MIT programs, the team was informed that a new makerspace from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department could soon be added to the Plasma Science and Fusion Center building on Albany Street. This scenario proposes additional makerspace to support other MIT academic departments and the various interests in the Cambridgeport community. The proposed makerspace could be located on Sidney and Merriam Streets and be jointly used by Cambridge residents and MIT affiliates. Cambridgeport residents could be encouraged to enjoy the facilities and equipment with subsidized membership costs.

The innovation spaces to be planned around Kendall Square will mostly continue to attract established companies in the fields of information technology, energy, and biotechnology. The presence of Google, Shell TechWorks, and Biogen exemplifies the current and expected future innovation ecosystem in Kendall. The innovation spaces proposed in the study area will fill a gap in the broader Cambridge innovation ecosystem by accommodating small to mid-size companies.

The Gateway site could be developed into rentable and affordable co-working spaces for entrepreneurial firms which are past the startup phase and starting to solidify their ventures. It is important to ensure the affordability of these co-working spaces To complement the types of uses in the to truly allow for an equitable access to coworking and makerspaces, a community innovation and its benefits. center and a showcase gallery could serve to strengthen the sense of community. The need

for a community center was expressed during the first community meeting. This type of use fits in the innovation ecosystem as it would encourage interactions.

More than serving as a meeting space, the center could host activities such as learning modules led by MIT affiliates and geared for an audience of K-12 students in the wider Cambridgeport community. Retail and commerce spaces will be provided along Emily Street and Waverly Street to support community-owned convenience and specialty stores. These stores will enhance the livability of the neighborhood by providing additional amenities and avenues for people to interact.

The showcase gallery on Albany Street and Massachusetts Ave can act as another gateway into this proposed innovative environment.

Given that the MIT Museum will be moving to Kendall, the gallery will highlight the amazing work generated in this community and serve as a continued source of inspiration for innovative ideas.

75

Innovation: Land Use Academic & Facilities Academic, administrative and facilities spaces will ensure the functioning of the proposed innovation ecosystem in Cambridgeport.

The academic uses will be concentrated on the Anchor site and will work in tandem with the adjacent makerspaces. The mens et manus spirit of MIT will be exemplified here by encouraging the symbiotic relationship between theories learned in class and applied in the makerspaces. Additional administrative and office spaces are proposed on the surface parking lot next to NW23 on Albany Street.

This will add to the existing pool of MIT offices like the Office of Campus Planning (OCP) currently located along the street. As for facilities spaces, they could be located on 258 Albany Street closest to the rest of MIT in order to best serve the other areas of the campus.

Innovation Scenario: Spaces for Innovation

76

Innovation Scenario: Academic and Facilities Uses

77

Innovation: Land Use Housing Additional housing will sustain the innovation ecosystem by reinforcing a sense of community and activating the area’s public realm. The proposed graduate and family housing will be located on the vacant plots on either side of Fort Washington Park on Waverly and Albany Streets. The graduate students and their families would enjoy and further activate the park. Moreover, this cluster of graduate and family housing will mirror the Tang and Westgate graduate dorms on MIT’s West Campus and establish a zone with a dense graduate population. Adding ground floor dining and convenience stores could be beneficial to cater for this population.

The creation of affordable housing will ensure that benefits generated from introducing changes to the neighborhood are shared with the community. The Director of Development of Homeowners Rehab Inc. (HRI) pointed out to the team that HRI had been involved with a fully affordable housing development (40 units) on 625 Putnam Avenue. The scenario identifies the California Paint building abutting the HRI development as a site for additional affordable housing. This location would complement and add breadth to the

78

nearby community of graduate housing across provide the community with a diversity of Waverly Street. uses . The retail and commerce spaces would be located on the current West Lot and West Open Space Annex Lot on Vassar Street. These locations Taking into account the increased circulation could be strategic for commercial spaces flows, open spaces and retail locations will given the potential for Erie and Pacific Streets

Innovation Scenario: Housing

(and their extension to the at-grade railway crossings) to become active pedestrian and cyclist pathways.

Two additional green spaces, one on Waverly Street and the other on Albany Street, will further the innovation spirit with active engagements around urban agriculture. The innovative methods of urban agriculture will also reflect Cambridgeport residents’ existing initiatives as seen through the community garden at the corner of Emily and Brookline Streets. These two green spaces near the Gateway and Hub sites will encompass the innovation spirit with active and interactive uses.

Innovation Scenario: Open Space

79

Innovation: Land Use Circulation With the anticipated new uses that will be brought into the neighborhood, it is expected that circulation around those spaces will increase. Moreover, the addition of a Flour Bakery and a Hubway Station as part of the exterior improvements of the BioMed campus at 40 Erie and 200 Sidney Streets will also affect circulation levels. These two amenities and the proposed Innovation scenario uses can prioritize pedestrian and cyclist circulation without inducing large amounts of vehicular flow.

Possible Massings The diagrammatic massings visually depict the density and activity levels that guided the process of locating the programs. The proposed graduate and family housing as

well as the co-working spaces on the Nectow parcel exceed the as-of-right build out. Some zoning recommendations will be made in the following section.

The two crossings over the Grand Junction railroad should therefore be improved to accommodate the higher flows of pedestrians and cyclists. More importantly, additional bike paths along Erie and Pacific Street should be provided to facilitate north-south travel between the neighborhood and MIT’s West Campus—the existing bike paths on AlbanyWaverly, Sidney, and Brookline Streets are best suited for west-east commutes.

Innovation Scenario: Open Space

80

Innovation Scenario: Overview of Possible Massings

81

Innovation: Use Summary The proposed gross square footage of the programs in the innovation scenario fit the estimates provided by the Client. The scenario exceeds the estimates for innovation and housing (especially with the addition of affordable housing) as well as accommodates the expected increases in pedestrian and cyclist circulation levels by introducing additional open spaces and retail and dining locations.

To account for the deviations in zoning, the Planning Unit Development (PUD) method is adequate. First, the Nectow Parcel and the adjacent vacant lot on Waverly Street could form a PUD. The two parcels are both zoned SD-10F and are limited by an FAR of 0.6. The combined allowed gross square footage on both parcels totals 62,700 square feet. This allowable square footage could be entirely built out on the Nectow parcel in order to solidify its position as gateway and accommodate for the co-working spaces proposed in this Innovation scenario.

The parcels adjacent to Fort Washington Park and the California Paints building could also be grouped into a PUD. This scenario proposes to create a cluster of housing on those parcels.

82

The as-of-right dimensional requirements of the SD-8 and SD-8A zoning do not fully accommodate the proposed densities.

However, the provision of 45,000 square feet of affordable housing on the California Paints site could be traded for additional density for graduate and family housing.

Overview The innovation scenario applies the plan’s project principles by fostering a tight-knit, interactive and equitable community. The Gateway to this community will be marked by active co-working spaces whose spirit is mirrored in the makerspaces at the Anchor.

The housing and urban agriculture around the Hub emphasize the importance of spaces that can help create an interwoven community.

Innovation Scenario: Summary of Uses (in Gross Square Feet) Use Academic & Research Administration Facilities & Services Graduate Housing Affordable Housing Innovation Open Space (lot area only) Retail & Dining

Scenario - Full Buildout 115,000 GSF 67,000 75,000 255,000 90,000 135,000 50,000 50,000

Client Request 100,000 to 200,000 50,000 to 65,000 85,000 to 100,000 180,000 to 240,000 none 25,000 to 125,000 as desired none

Innovation Scenario: The Complete Vision

83

General Recommendations ......................Design Guidelines

Design Guidelines Placemaking Initiatives In order to enliven existing public spaces, Cambridgeport and MIT community members can collaborate on programming events and activities throughout the year that foster interaction and reimagine the public realm in order to maximize shared value. During the two community meetings, several residents expressed a desire for more opportunities to engage with the MIT community of students and staff, and to be more aware of its ongoing programs and activities. Collaborative placemaking activities can thus serve as an avenue to cultivate this valuable interaction between community and campus life.

Activities may include temporarily closing streets to automobile traffic so that people may use them for walking, playing, and socializing.

86

the Cambridge Historical Commission to ensure that future development in the area pays homage to this rich history by including period images and/or artifacts along their street-level spaces.

Resilient Design According to the Cambridge Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment report, some sections of the study area have a small chance of experiencing occasional flooding from precipitation. Flood-resistant building design should therefore be considered for future development projects in the area. Such design interventions include having the lowest occupied residential floor to be at or above design flood elevation, while permitting parking and storage to be below grade.

In addition, future building designs in the Neighbors can also come together to organize area should aim to install green roofs where temporary installations or special events, possible, both to help absorb precipitation, such as educational art and cultural festival but also to increase and diversify the mix of highlighting the diversity of languages and open space in the community. At the surface cuisines of Cambridge, or pop-up gyms level, rain gardens, bioswales and other where MIT students can lead outdoor fitness green infrastructure can be incorporated into activities for local children and seniors. Given the public right-of-way. Such sidewalk and the area’s industrial and innovation history, street design interventions will complement residents and MIT members can work with the existing urban vegetation, while also

beautifying other areas that have been characterized by industry, parking or vacant lots for decades.

Street and Parking Design In addition to placemaking and resilient design efforts, future development should implement strategic parking design interventions to satisfy the expected rise in parking demand while preserving the neighborhood’s character and reducing impacts on the environment.

The availability of surface parking lots will likely reduce over time as new buildings are erected in their place, but those that remain should incorporate green bioswales between parking lanes, permeable asphalt pavement to reduce stormwater runoff, and canopies with solar panels to generate energy and cool off the paved surface. Meanwhile, parking garages should strive to function as vibrant public spaces, providing opportunities for community interaction, a showcase for local art and innovation, and interweaving with the neighborhood’s industrial history, spirit of creativity, and architectural identity.

87

Appendices ...................................A: Glossary .................B: Commercial Assets .............................C: References

Glossary • Corridor: A major transportation corridor. This may be lined with businesses or medium-density housing.

• Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Quantifies the relationship between the amount of floor area permitted in a building and the area of the lot on which the building stands. It is a tool to express tradeoffs between height and open space. FAR = Gross Floor Area of Building/Total Area of the Lot. • Form (Building Form): The shape and mass of the building. Building typologies commonly come in one or a few forms.

Shape refers to the configuration of surfaces and edges of a building, while mass refers to the size or physical bulk of a building, and can be understood as the actual size, or size relative to context.7.1 • Green Infrastructure: A strategy for managing stormwater runoff at its source.

Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and other elements and practices to restore some of the natural processes required to manage water and create healthier urban environments (Source: US EPA).

• Hubway: Public transportation by bike, owned by the municipalities of Cambridge, Boston, Brookline, and Somerville.

The Hubway bike share system is fully in-

90

•

•

•

•

tegrated amongst the municipalities, so travel is seamless. (Source: Cambridge CDD).

Land Use: The process by which properties are evaluated and assessed to become a basis for decisions involving land disposition and utilization. Land uses are allowed by right or special permits, and are enumerated in the regulations for each zoning district. Basic uses of property include commercial, office, residential, and industrial, although zoning district regulations often list more specific activities.

Lot: a plot of land assigned for a particular use or for sale> Lots may be vacant, used for parking, have property built on it, or serve other purposes.

Makerspace: A general term for a place where people can gather to create, invent, learn and collaborate on do-it-yourself projects using a variety of tools and materials. Makerspaces might focus on electronics, robotics, woodworking, sewing, laser cutting, programming, or some combination of these skills. Also referred to as a hackerspace, hackerlab and fablab.

Massing: The general composition of the volume and bulk of a building. For instance, a commercial building is typically

•

•

• •

a rectangular mass with a flat roof. Homes can be simple rectangular mass, or more complex with numerous additions, and typically have gable or hipped roofs.

Node: A center of activity in a city, economic or otherwise. Nodes often occur at intersections of major corridors, although some function as the center of their particular neighborhood.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): A type of development classification which permits a developer to meet overall community density and land use goals without being bound by existing zoning requirements. A PUD groups both varied and compatible land uses, such as housing, recreation, commercial centers and industrial parks, into a contained development or subdivision (Source: US Dept of Agriculture).

Right-of-Way: The public right-of-way includes sidewalks, planting strips, and streets.

Scale: Relationship of the size and other elements of a building as they proportionally relate to humans and surrounding buildings.

• Setback: The required distance from the right of way that a building must be situated. Zoning codes often have requirements for front, rear, and side setbacks.

• Traffic Calming: Intended to slow or reduce motor-vehicle traffic in order to improve the living conditions for residents as well as to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic calming strategies include narrowing or reducing the number of traffic lanes, extending curbs to narrow the road at specific points, speed bumps, raised intersections, etc.

• Variance (Area Variance, Use Variance): Exceptions to a zoning regulation outside of uses permitted or permitted through special permits; area variances are exceptions related to structural requirements such as setbacks or height limits. Variances require a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals.

• Zoning: Municipal or local government laws that divide an area into zones or sections so as to dictate how property may be used. Zoning laws restrict the number and types of buildings and their purposes, such as residence, business and manufacturing.

List of Abbreviations • BU: Boston University • CASPAR: Cambridge and Somerville Program for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse • CDD: Cambridge Community Development Department • CNA: Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association • CPORT: Cambridgeport • DUSP: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning • FAR: Floor Area Ratio • GSF: Gross Square Footage • MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology • MITIMCO: MIT Investment Management Company • OCP: MIT Office of Campus Planning • PUD: Planned Unit Development • SD: Special District

91

Commercial Assets Name Haines Sculpture Blanc Gallery Good News Garage Samos Auto Electric Services Addgene Boston Biomedical Genzyme Corp GnuBIO Intellia Therapeutics Metabolix Inc Sanofi R&D Seres Therapeutics Cambridgeport Children's Center Koch Childcare Center Catalyst Cycle Flour Bakery Flour Bakery

92

Location 202 Sidney St 110 Brookline St 75 Hamilton 9 Decatur St 75 Sidney St 640 Memorial Drive 64 Sidney St 620 Memorial Drive 130 Brookline St 21 Erie St 270 Albany St 200 Sidney St 65 Chestnut St 219 Vassar St 91 Sidney St 190 Massachusetts Ave 40 Erie St

Description Art - Sculpture Gallery Art - Gallery Auto Services Auto Services Biotech Biotech Biotech Biotech Biotech Biotech Biotech Biotech Daycare Daycare Fitness Studio Food - Café Food - Café

Note In Study Area In Study Area MIT-owned property In Study Area Outside of study area Outside of study area Outside of study area Outside of study area MIT-owned property In Study Area In Study Area In Study Area In Study Area MIT-owned property Outside of study area Outside of study area New

Name Pacific Street Café First United Market Star Market Asgard Bytes at University Park Cambridge Pizza Dimitrios Cuisine Zephyr On the Charles MIT Furniture Exchange Sunoco Gas Station Simply Erinn's Metropolitan Laundromat Tank Design Intersection Associates New Alliance Audio Portal Instruments Claritas Genomics

Location 70 Pacific St 271 Brookline St 20 Sidney St 350 Massachusetts Ave 64 Sidney St 263 Brookline St 272 Brookline St 575 Memorial Dr 350 Brookline St 266 Massachusetts Ave 268 Brookline St 266 Brookline St 160 Sidney St 56 Chestnut St 110 Brookline St 148 Sidney St 99 Erie St

Description Food - Café Food - Grocery Food - Grocery Food - Restaurant Food - Restaurant Food - Restaurant Food - Restaurant Food - Restaurant Furniture Store Gas Station Hair Salon Laundromat Marketing Agency Media Services - A/V Media Services - Audio Medical Equipment Medical Lab

Note MIT-owned property In Study Area Outside of study area Outside of study area Outside of study area In Study Area In Study Area In Hyatt Hotel MIT-owned property Outside of study area In Study Area In Study Area In Study Area In Study Area In Study Area MIT-owned property MIT-owned property

93

Commercial Assets Name Dr. Sherman, MD Aileron Therapeutics Acceleron Agios Pharmaceuticals ARIAD Pharmaceuticals Idera Pharmaceuticals Millennium Pharmaceuticals Novartis BioMed Synlogic Syros Pharmaceuticals Takeda Oncology Colliers Meredith & Grew Inc 24M Tech Wistia, Inc Shell Techworks Superpedestrian Inc Livable Streets Alliance

94

Location 149 Sidney St 281 Albany St 128 Sidney St 88 Sidney St 26 Landsdowne 167 Sidney St 35 Landsdowne St 250 Massachusetts Ave 200 Sidney St 620 Memorial Drive 40 Landsdowne 130 Brookline St 130 Brookline St 17 Tudor St 281 Albany St 84 Hamilton St 70 Pacific St

Description Medical Services Medical Supply Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Real Estate Tech Tech Tech / Start-up Tech / Start-up Transportation Nonprofit

Note MIT-owned property MIT-owned property MIT-owned property Outside of study area Outside of study area MIT-owned property Outside of study area Outside of study area In Study Area Outside of study area Outside of study area MIT-owned property MIT-owned property MIT-owned property MIT-owned property In Study Area In Study Area

References Introduction (none)

About the Study Area (2.1) Cambridge Historical Society (http:// www.cambridgehistory.org/discover/industry/johnreardon.html) (2.2) South Cambridgeport - Site Through Time (http://www.mit.edu/~jfabi/11.016/ throughtime.htm) (2.3) The New York Times (http://www. nytimes.com/1987/04/12/us/cambridgegroup-takes-on-mit.html) (2.4) American Community Survey 2015 (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/ data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/)

(2.5) MIT Facilities Department. http://web. mit.edu/facilities/construction/completed/ completed.html

(2.6) MIT Office of Government and Community Relations. https://ogcr.mit.edu/sites/ default/files/towngown2009.pdf (2.7) MIT Office of the Provost. https://

orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20140603_Provost_GradHousingFinal. pdf (2.8) City of Cambridge (1983). Cambridgeport Revitalization Plan. (https://www. cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/CDD/ Planning/Studies/Cambridgeport/cport_revitalization_plan_1983.pdf)

(2.9) City of Cambridge (1983). Cambridgeport Revitalization Plan. (http://www. cambridgema.gov/CDD/publications/detail. aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2fCDD%2fpublications%2falphabeticaldocumentfolders%2fC%2fcportrevitalizationplan)

(2.10) City of Cambridge (1986). Cambridgeport Blue Ribbon Committee Report. Harvard Graduate School of Design (http://www. cambridgema.gov/CDD/publications/detail. aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2fCDD%2fpublications%2falphabeticaldocumentfolders%2fC%2fcportblueribbon1986) (2.11) City of Cambridge (1987). University Park at MIT: Urban Design Guidelines.

(http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/ Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/DesignGuidelines/ guidelines_univer_park_1987_.pdf?la=en)

(2.12) City of Cambridge (1992). South Cambridgeport Development Guidelines (http:// www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/publications/ detail.aspx?path=%2fsitecore%2fcontent%2fhome%2fCDD%2fpublications%2falphabeticaldocumentfolders%2fS%2fsouthcportdevguide1992) Existing Conditions (none)

Goals (4.1) http://www.mahlum.com/pdf/CPM2014CollegeHousingReport(1).pdf Scenarios (none)

General Recommendations (none)

Appendices (7.1) Crisman, Phoebe (2016). Form. Whole Building Design Guide. (https://www.wbdg. org/resources/form)

95