the architects role in designing the

MACRO and the MICROnorthpoint master plan the sierra building

A

B CD E

F

G

H

IJ K

L

M

N

Q

RS

TU

V

the architects role in designing the

MACRO and the MICRO

No part of this publication may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 or the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission from the authors.

Unless specifically stated otherwise all content is property of the authors. Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify owners of copyright, photographs, diagrams and images. Errors or omissions with be corrected in subsequent editions.

Copyright 2009 byNortheastern University School of ArchitectureAll rights reservedFirst printing April 2009

Published byNortheastern University School of Architecture360 Huntington AveBoston, Massachusetts 02115

northpoint master plan the sierra building

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y5

a case study in

the architects role in designing the macro and the micro through team integration, coordination, and organization

by

cavin costello and elizabeth utz

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y6

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y7

abstract

Attention to detail is imperative for the success of a project, since it is the accumulation of details that make up a

whole. On the other hand, attention to the overall vision of a project can help attain projected goals on time and

accurately by understanding how to arrange the details. Many times people lose site of either the big picture or

small picture when working on one or the other. An architect has the ability to coordinate between the macro scale

and the micro scale while integrating the organization of them throughout the process of a project.

The ability to simultaneously design at both the micro and macro level enables a foundation for better technique

in the planning process, which can lead to more successful and sustainable results. Planning is not limited to the

built environment; it also affects policies and funding, regional transportation, relationships, and societal and cultural

issues. However, it is ultimately about the physical environment and including architects may reduce the possibility

of the master plan consisting of only numbers and terms like mixed use development. What does mixed use

development mean in plan? What do these numbers really mean? Planners are often concerned with the pretty

picture, and may lack rigorous thought on the constructability of the parcels being defined. These ideas can benefit

from an architects attention to detail by being tested physically.

Parcel testing is analyzing each parcel with different combinations of program in order to discover the best solutions.

In doing this, the planner learns how each building can play off of each other, which creates flexibility. This flexibility

in macro design allows for adaptation to the physical, social, and economic changes that occur during the typically

long execution phase. Opportunities that are unavailable in loose plans may be revealed during this testing process,

one of which may be a diversity of architectural expression.

Diversity of architectural expression may be best pioneered by the architect involved in the master plan, since they

are responsible for the vision of the project. It could also benefit future firms as a physical experiment of the written

rules, providing a measuring stick for any future design, and setting the aesthetic tone of the development.

Architects often contribute a practical reality to the physical implementation of a master plan. Although architects

are also trained in abstract thought, it is their tectonic expertise that is imperative to the success of both designing

the macro and the micro. Is the solution for a successful master plan to include architects in both the macro and

the micro?

0 C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

Tabl

e of

Con

tent

s C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

1Regarding the Present 3Setting the Stage 7Highlighting the Team 15Creating Team Identity 27Designing the Master Plan 37Designing the Building 51Regarding the Future 65Sources 69

2 C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

Reg

ardi

ng th

e P

rese

nt C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

3Introduction

4 C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

Reg

ardi

ng th

e P

rese

nt C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

5INTRODUCTION Cities are constantly evolving and

as time progresses, and this evolution is seemingly

becoming more rapid. Portions of cities become

outdated as technology improves rendering these areas

as potential sites for redevelopment. Master plans are

needed because a place is seen as dilapidated. They

require a strong promising vision so that the public

gains trust in the project. In the past, the process has

typically been a top-down approach that is carried out by

developers and politicians who focus on the big picture

and are only interested in that vision or a pretty picture

for the final product. This product is determined and set

before any building takes place, creating an inflexible

and potentially failing process.

Creating spaces that include social networks and

existing communities is the key to a high quality

urban environment. Traditionally master planning has

jeopardized its relation to existing urban settings by

unintentionally excluding the adjacencies of the site.

Spaces tend to be unwelcoming for pedestrians with

towering buildings and city centers with no variety. This

bland sense of place exists because most master plans

were only considered two dimensionally, lacking what

implications the three dimensional buildings will have

on the spaces. The outcome of this approach ignores

the architecture of the buildings in attempt to create a

unified space. This unfortunately lacks critical elements

for a successful master plan.

The process of master planning is currently experiencing

a transition, probably a result of its incompatibility with

an evolving city. Architects are recently becoming

involved in the master planning process. They are not

replacing master planners; they are simply joining the

team. They may have something indispensable to offer

to the process.

Architects are capable of thinking in three dimensions.

This could be beneficial for solving the problem of a bland

sense of place. They could work with the architecture

of the buildings and imagine what the experience of a

pedestrian would be. By working with each building, they

could create variety through architectural expression.

An architects ability to multi task could be helpful as

well. Master plans should be addressing the quality

of the spaces in an integrated way by coordinating the

economic, social, environmental, and physical aspects

of a site. Architects can use their attention to detail on

each specific issue while simultaneously thinking about

the big picture. These attributes can prevent the master

plan from becoming inflexible and deterministic.

Master plans should be guidelines for the process, not

the product. The evolution of a city is a process and

cities are constantly changing, so master plans should

as well.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y6

Set

ting

the

Sta

ge C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

7NorthPoint ComplexitySite HistoryProject History

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y8 TRANSPORTATION

MBTA Green Line Lechmere Station

The NorthPoint proposal included relocating and rebuilding the Lechmere Station stop on the Green Line.

Monsignor OBrien Highway

Monsignor OBrien Highway, or Route 28, separates NorthPoint from the existing East Cambridge fabric.

Rail Yards

Rail yards border the north edge of NorthPoint.

WETLANDS

Chapter 91

The DEP determined that NorthPoint was not required to obtain a Chapter 91 License because the parcels fit within the definition of landlocked tidelands, but this ruling was brought to court.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTExT

Existing Retail and Amenities

The site borders an existing, well developed neighborhood with many amenities and retail such as the Cambridgeside Galleria.

Set

ting

the

Sta

ge C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

9MUNICIPALITIES

Tri-City Area

The site straddles three cities, Somerville, Boston, and Cambridge, and had to get approval from all three.

COMMUNITIES

Community Involvement

The NorthPoint team dealt with numerous community groups including the Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, Eastern Cambridge Planning Study Committee, and the Conservation Law Foundation.

MEPA

Permitting

NorthPoint is situated on landfill covering the former Millers River.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y10

Aerial view of Millers River on the NorthPoint site in 1950

Set

ting

the

Sta

ge C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

11

SITE HISTORY The NorthPoint site is primarily located

in East Cambridge, bound by Monsignor OBrien

Highway, the Gilmore Bridge, and by the MBTA Green

Line. Charlestown, Boston and Somerville are also

included in the triangular site but at small percentages.

The project proposes to expand and improve roadways,

bicycle paths, and sidewalks under the Gilmore Bridge.

In 1640 a statute written in Chapter 91 of the

Massachusetts General Laws may have affected

the development or redevelopment of property. It

gave ownership between high tide and low tide to the

upland land owner and was also reserved for the public

to fish, fowl, and to navigate. The Commonwealth

took the remainder which encouraged the building of

wharves, other structures, and the filling of tidelands.

This resulted in overcrowded harbors from building

and filling which instigated the creation of the Board

of Harbor Commissioners in 1866 to oversee harbors,

tidal flats and tidewaters in the Commonwealth. This

included the approval of plans for the placement of fill or

structures on tidal areas. Licenses were then granted

for the building of structures and wharves, or the filling

of flats in 1872 by the Board of Harbor Commissioners.

In 1874 the Legislature began requiring payments to be

made to compensate the Commonwealth for the filling of

Commonwealth Tidelands. Presently the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) is authorized to license

and prescribe the terms. The definition of tidelands,

according to Chapter 91, Section 1, include current and

former submerged lands and tidal flats lying below the

mean high watermark. Chapter 91 also states that non-

water dependant projects on Commonwealth Tidelands

are required to devote the ground floor of the buildings

to public amenities.

The Millers River used to be part of thirteen tidelands

that flowed through the NorthPoint site until the early

1960s. Boston & Maine initially filled in the tidelands

in 1870. They later completely filled in the river under

a license issued by the Department of Public Works

in 1962 to initiate urban expansion with additional

railroad use. This license also required that Boston &

Maine constructed underground culverts to serve as

the drainage process previously carried out naturally by

the river. Maintenance was to be performed on these

culverts as well, which did not occur and resulted in a

clogged and nonfunctional drainage system. After these

results, the Conservation Law Foundation wanted to

restore the river to its natural state, delaying progress

on the Sierra Building at the time of construction.

After the initial proposal of the NorthPoint redevelopment

plan by Guilford Transportation Industries, Spaulding and

Slye Colliers was selected to act as their development

manager for the transformation of the fifty acres of rail

yard into a residential-commercial neighborhood. During

this time an MBTA Board of Directors vote authorized

a five acre land swap of the existing Lechmere station

in exchange for a new station and bus terminal and

an elevated pedestrian walkway over the six lanes of

Monsignor OBrien Highway to be built by North Points

developer. The property was given to Spaulding & Slye

by Boston & Maine in 2001 as a ninety nine year lease

for 39 acres. This included the five acre land swap by

the MBTA in order to build a new Lechmere station.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y12

2001 NorthPoint Proposal

Set

ting

the

Sta

ge C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

13

PROJECT HISTORY The idea of building on

the NorthPoint site began in 1999 when Guilford

Transportation Industries proposed a large residential

and commercial project near the Lechmere MBTA

station. Timothy Mellon envisioned the development as

a center for business and residential life that would renew

a decaying area of Cambridge. David Fink praised the

proposal as a way of attracting people back into urban

areas. However, the surprise proposal was perceived

negatively by city official and local residents. An 18

month moratorium was placed on the development by

the Cambridge City Council until a review of the effects

of the new proposal could be completed.

In 2001, a new plan was offered. This new plan

included the replacing of Farmer & Flier Associates as

developers with Spaulding & Slye Colliers. Farmer &

Flier Associates had been questioned about their partial

ownership of a separate firm used by the MBTA to

redevelop and manage other properties, which caused

a conflict of issues. Although they were cleared by the

Ethics Commission, Guilford Transportation Industries

decided to part ways with them because of the public

controversy. The new plan included a residential

neighborhood of 5,000 or more people, a hotel, research

buildings and offices. A key addition to the new plan was

the proposal of moving the Lechmere Green Line MBTA

station across the OBrien Highway, thus giving them

the rights to redevelop the existing T site in return. To

improve access to the new neighborhood, the proposal

also suggested building a pedestrian bridge over the

highway. The new proposal received a fairly positive

response that hinged on how closely the developers

worked with the neighborhood and the city. The proposal

began to move forward with interest from Mayor Anthony

D. Galluccio, Timothy J. Toomey Jr., and Seth Kaplan.

In June of 2001, the Association of Cambridge

Neighborhoods, concerned about the development,

proposed a rebuttal plan with less density and new

height restrictions. Stash Horowitz and the late John

Moot believed that the city proposed density would lead

to too much traffic in an area already troubled by traffic

problems and was too commercial and car friendly.

The rezoning proposal was approved by the East

Cambridge Committee in October of 2001. The new

zoning allowed Guilford Transportation Industries most

of the density they wanted but stipulated the new T

station had to be relocated before the issue of an

occupancy permit. It also required the tall buildings to

border the highway and lower buildings the residential

neighborhoods and a new park as a transition zone

between NorthPoint and the existing neighborhoods.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y14

Hig

hlig

htin

g th

e Te

am C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

15Project PlayersSpaulding & Slye Colliers / Jones Lang LaSalleGreenberg Consultants Inc.Childs Bertman Tseckares

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y16

DEVELOPERS

Pan Am RailwaysOwnersFormerly Guilford Transportation Industries, Pan Am Railways is a holding company that manages a Class II regional railroad, a mid-sized freight hauling railroad, covering northern New England. They are also referred to as Boston and Maine, Pan American Railways, Pan American Systems, Pan American Airways, and Pan American Industries.CEO: Timothy MellonGraduate from Yale University with an Urban Planning degree, Timothy Mellon formed Guilford Transportation Industries in 1977.President: David Fink

Jones Lang LaSalleDevelopment ManagerJones Lang LaSalle is a global financial and professional services firm specializing in real estate services and investment management. They assemble teams of experts who deliver integrated services, are based in Boston, and are managing development, construction, and leasing of the NorthPoint project.Regional Manager: Kyle B. Warwick

Spaulding & Slye ColliersDevelopersSpaulding & Slye Colliers, a real estate services firm was purchased by Jones Lang LaSalle in 2005.Project Manager: Mark GarberProject Executive: Peter StankiewiczPrincipal: David VickeryPrincipal: Daniel OConnellSenior Vice President: Howard J. DavisVice President: Ralph F. CoxVice President/Project Director: Lisa SerafinCommunity Liason: Nat Wysor

Cambridge North Point LLCManaging Partner and Minority OwnerA group of prominent local development executives.

DESIGNERS

Childs Bertman Tseckares Architects (cbt)Master Planners; Sierra Building ArchitectsCBT, located in Boston, MA, practice interior design, architecture, and master planning. They believe that the best design solutions are those with thoughtful collaboration.Project Manager: John StrothersProject Architect: Aris BakalosUrban Planner: Kishore Varanasi

Greenberg Consultants Inc.Master PlannersThey lead a multidisciplinary team of CBT and Michael van Vaulkenburgh Associates on the NorthPoint project.President/Principal: Kenneth Greenberg

Michael van Valkenburgh AssociatesLandscape DesignersMichael van Valkenburgh Associates has over twenty years of experience designing, building, and restoring landscapes with an approach of working closely with the site itself.Owner: Michael van Vaulkenburgh

Haley & Aldrich: Geotechnical and Environmental ConsultantEnvironmental Engineer: Keith JohnsonHaley & Aldrich is integrating geotechnical and environmental solutions for NorthPoint.

Beals and Thomas: Civil Engineer & Environmental Permitting

Regenesis Group, Inc.: Integrated Design and LEED Consultanthttp://www.regenesisgroup.com/WhoWeAre

MARKETERS

The Collaborative Companies Sales and MarketingThe Collaborative Companies is a full-service, residential real estate marketing firm specializing in the development and implementation of comprehensive sales and marketing programs. They can actively participate in the design development phase, formulate creative marketing strategies, manage on-site sales programs, and deliver a powerful creative marketing campaign throughout the duration of the project.

Spaulding & Slye Colliers Marketing of Commercial SpacePrincipal: Debra GouldVice President: Dan Cordeau

North Point Land Company

Hig

hlig

htin

g th

e Te

am C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

17

COMMUNITIES

Association of Cambridge NeighborhoodsPresident: John MootVise President: Stash HorowitzCivil Engineer: Stephen H. Kaiser

Eastern Cambridge Planning Study CommitteeThe committee works closely with teams of professional planning consultants and address issues that include urban design, open space, land use, zoning, transportation, economic development and employment.Co-chairman: Douglas Ling

Conservation Law FoundationSince 1966, the non-profit, member supported organizations staff has worked to solve environmental problems that threaten New England by creating innovative strategies to conserve natural resources, protect public health and promote vital communities in our region.Co-Founder: John Moot

MUNICIPALITIES

Boston Redevelopment AuthorityDeputy Director of Development Review: Heather Campisano

City of SomervilleMayor: Joseph A. Curtatone

City of CambridgeMayor 2000-2001: Anthony D. GalluccioMayor 2002-2005: Michael A. SullivanState Representative: Timothy ToomeyCity Manager: Robert HealyUrban Planning Consultant: David Dixon

City Councils Ordinance CommitteeCity Councilor: Michael Sullivan

MISCELLANEOUS

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)General Manager: Michael MulhernGeneral Manager: Dan Grabauskas

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y18

33 Arch Street, BostonSpaulding & Slye Development

125 High Street, BostonSpaulding & Slye Development

Hig

hlig

htin

g th

e Te

am C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

19

SPAULDING & SLYE COLLIERS / JONES LANG

LASALLE Spaulding & Slye Colliers, purchased by

Jones Lang LaSalle in 2005, is a real estate services

firm based in Boston with a large office in Washington

D.C. As of 2005, Spaulding & Slye Colliers had 500

employees and was heavily involved in the Boston

and Washington D.C. markets. However, Spaulding

& Slye Colliers had little presence elsewhere. Jones

Lang LaSalle is a huge player in the real estate market

worldwide with over 19,000 employees, but only had

40 employees in Boston. Both firms provide numerous

real estate services including property management,

leasing, investment sales, and development. The major

difference between the operations of the companies

is that Spaulding & Slye has a construction operation.

Spaulding & Slye Colliers specializes in areas like higher

education, life sciences and law firm practices.

Spaulding & Slye Colliers has a long history in Boston.

They have worked on notable projects such as 33 Arch

Street, 125 High Street, and The Fan Pier. Their 42

years of experience in Boston was not the only reason

they decided to develop NorthPoint. First, they saw

NorthPoint as essentially a hole in a donut type of site

in reference to built area. This led Spaulding & Slye

Colliers to believe that they could greatly enhance the

value of the site. Secondly, they believed they could do

this because of the great success they felt they had on

The Fan Pier in Boston. The Fan Pier is a 20 acre mini-

city that Spaulding & Slye Collier developed with Ken

Greenberg at Urban Strategies and CBT years prior to

NorthPoint. This mixed-use dense urban plan on the

Boston waterfront, with structures from 15 to 23 stories,

showed the team that they could make great projects

even at a large urban scale.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y20

San Juan Waterfront, San JuanGreenberg Consultants master plan design with CBT and Colliers International

Convention Center District, San JuanGreenberg Consultants master plan design with CBT and Colliers International

The Fan Pier, BostonGreenberg Consultants master plan design with CBT and Spaulding & Slye Colliers

Hig

hlig

htin

g th

e Te

am C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

21

GREENBERG CONSULTANTS INC. Ken Greenberg

has been a sole practitioner and principal of Greenberg

Consultants Inc. since he founded the company in 2001.

In his career of over three decades, Ken Greenberg has

been a partner at two different firms, Carter-Greenberg

and Urban Strategies, and was the founding director

of the division of Architecture and Urban Design, City

of Toronto Planning and Development department.

Greenberg Consultants Inc. pursues a creative problem

solving approach to managing change in all aspects of

city building and rebuilding. In order to engage many

diverse clients, Greenberg Consultants emphasize clear

communication verbally and graphically which allows for

creativity with new technologies. The projects involve

highly diverse urban settings in North America in Europe

with a focus on revitalizing downtowns, waterfronts,

neighborhoods and campus master planning. Greenberg

Consultants Inc. prides itself on crossing traditional

boundaries and working on projects with several talented

professionals from various disciplines, something that

proved to be very helpful on a project with the scale and

complexity of NorthPoint.

Greenberg Consultants Inc. was not a random selection

as master planners of NorthPoint. Before NorthPoint,

Ken Greenberg had prior relationships with CBT

and Spaulding & Slye Colliers, most notably through

their work on The Fan Pier in Boston, when he was a

partner at Urban Strategies. The relationships between

Greenberg Consultants Inc., Spaulding and Slye

Colliers, and CBT continue to be fruitful as they have

teamed up on numerous projects together. Greenberg

also has connections to the Boston/Cambridge area

through work on the Big Dig, Boston University Strategic

Campus Plan, and Kendall Square. In 2005/2006,

Greenberg was Interim Chief Planner on the Boston

Redevelopment Authority. The NorthPoint master plan

was intriguing to Greenberg because he believed it was a

great project with city building opportunities, it had good

clients, and because of the interesting relationships with

the municipalities.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y22

San Juan Waterfront CBT master plan design with Ken Greenberg and Colliers International

Mandarin Oriental, BostonCBT design

The Fan Pier, BostonCBT master plan design with Ken Greenberg and Spaulding & Slye Colliers

Hig

hlig

htin

g th

e Te

am C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

23

CHILDS BERTMAN TSECKARES Childs Bertman

Tseckares (CBT) is a design firm in Boston that provides

services in architecture, interior design, urban design

and graphic design. They have received over 120

design awards for their excellence and creativity in the

design of new buildings and the preservation of existing

structures. CBT is currently the largest architecture

firm in the area as ranked by Boston Business Journal

on architecture billings in Massachusetts. They also

ranked second in the area on the list of largest interior

design firms. CBT has a staff of over 250 people which

includes 10 partners and 53 registered architects.

The firms current partners are James McBain, Alfred

Wojciechowski, Charles Tseckares, Christopher Hill,

David Hancock, David Nagahiro, Lois Goodell, Margaret

Deutsch, Richard Bertman and Robert Brown.

CBTs project types are extremely varied and encompass

academic, mixed-use, residential, civic and preservation,

and hospitality. They were known for small scale projects

before their first major building in 1989. The size of their

projects currently range from private residences to the 36

story 111 Huntington Tower. Most of these projects are

located in Boston in the surrounding areas but there are

a few national and international projects including work

in places such as the Caribbean, Middle East, China

and San Juan. Their clients comprise of individuals,

academic institutions, counties and businesses.

CBT is interested in pursuing sustainable architecture.

They have over 30 LEED certified buildings and

have developed an approach to design that balances

economic efficiency, environmental harmony and

social benefit. They are engaged with their clients by

introducing them to the financial and operational benefits

of sustainability.

CBT believes that the solution to good design is through

thoughtful collaboration with multiple voices. Their

design outcomes are meant to resonate with the spirit

of those who will use them. They carried this attitude

throughout the entire process of NorthPoint and were

concerned with how the outer edges of the master plan

would affect existing conditions; they did not want the

neighborhood to be inward facing.

Rather than viewing master plans as an opportunity for

a pretty picture, CBT views urban design as a vehicle

to discover great clients which allows architecture to be

pushed to the next level. They believe that many clients

are stuck in the old mold of a non-flexible plan. CBT

worked with the parcels of NorthPoint by testing them

with different programs, heights, street offsets, street

widths, and servicing in order to create a flexible master

plan. This flexibility eliminates time loss later in the

design process if a parcel needs to change to a different

program.

CBT was previously on a project, known as Fan Pier

in South Boston, with Spaulding & Syle Colliers and

Kenneth Greenberg. This project began a few years

before NorthPoint which initially set up the organization

of their relationship.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y24

Childs Bertman

Tseckares

Michael van Valkenburgh Associates

Phase 1 Construction

Built Parcel

Unbuilt Parcel

Built Park

Unbuilt Park

Behnisch Architekten

Behnisch Architekten

Architects Alliance

EhrlichArchitects

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y24

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y25

Childs Bertman

Tseckares

Michael van Valkenburgh Associates

Phase 1 Construction

Built Parcel

Unbuilt Parcel

Built Park

Unbuilt Park

Behnisch Architekten

Behnisch Architekten

Architects Alliance

EhrlichArchitects

Hig

hlig

htin

g th

e Te

am

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y26

Cre

atin

g Te

am Id

entit

y C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

27Trust and VisionIntegrated DesignLocality

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y28

East Cambridges early vision for NorthPoint

The NorthPoint design teams vision

Cre

atin

g Te

am Id

entit

y C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

29

TRUST AND VISION Spaulding & Slye Colliers, CBT,

and Greenberg Consultants pursued the NorthPoint

project as a team after working together on Fan Pier in

Boston. Through the eight years of working together

the three companies had gained a mutual trust in each

other and recognized a similar vision in urban planning,

architecture, and construction. Each member of the

team brought unique skills to the project. Greenberg

Consultants had a broad world view on planning and

permitting, brought credibility through his worldwide

recognition, had done similar work, and provided

general strategies and integration of transportation and

economics. CBT provided design skills in the physical,

macro and micro environments, as well as a background

in architecture which allowed them to work with many

developers, understand constructability and permitting,

and cut through many issues with problem solving

techniques. Spaulding & Slye Colliers was a visionary

developing company with a large portion of their staff

with design backgrounds that know how to build cities

and are not purely driven by profit. The trust between

the three parties was only enhanced by the dedication

to a similar vision. CBT, Greenberg Consultants, and

Spaulding & Slye Colliers all believed highly that a team

approach, innovative thinking, and an equal dedication

to designing the macro and micro will lead to the best

results. They all believed that it is the details that make

a project, not the pretty picture.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y30

The landscape for the master plan was designed together with the buildings.

Cre

atin

g Te

am Id

entit

y C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

31

INTEGRATED DESIGN The integrated design

approach grew from the mutual trust and vision the team

possessed. They knew from experience they gained on

the Fan Pier project that they could successfully interact

in a way that pushed and pulled at each other to produce

the best results. Spaulding & Slye Colliers then hired

the rest of the team to include people that were like

minded to CBT and Greenberg Consultants and would

be able to work in the integrated design environment.

The team would meet for half day sessions twice a week

with everyone on the design team at the table. The

coordination of this involved making sure that everyone

did their tasks before coming to the meeting to insure that

everyone was interacting at the same level. This rigor

in preparation allowed for flexibility and innovation in the

design process. By allowing ideas to come equally from

all parties involved, the NorthPoint master plan became

much stronger. A great example of integration is found

between the landscape designers and engineers who

collaborated to manipulate the grades in order to place

parking below what is actually above. Jim Kostaras of

Somerville remarked on the quality of the integration of

architecture and landscape design and the willingness

of the developers to allow cutting edge design and reach

out to a whole new market of dense urban dwellers. This

result was made possible through the full integration

from the beginning of the project.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y32

A sample of local work locations by CBT and Greenberg Consultants

NorthPoint

Cre

atin

g Te

am Id

entit

y C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

33

LOCALITY In a project as complex and public as

NorthPoint, local firms provide numerous benefits over

foreign firms. Local firms have the ability to move at

a rapid pace purely based on their location. Since

Spaulding & Slye Colliers was in the neighborhood

of CBT, there could be informal meetings, which Lisa

Serafin said are invaluable even in the age of FTP

sites and conference calls. Local firms also have an

advantage in the complex permitting process, such as

NorthPoint, and it takes someone who understands

the community and permitting environment. Meetings

for NorthPoint were sometimes several nights a week

and it was a highly visible permitting process. CBT has

an extensive local resume with over 20 built projects in

Boston and Cambridge alone, with numerous others in

the surrounding cities. Greenberg Consultants, although

not a local firm, has lots of experience on complex issues

in the area. Ken Greenberg worked on Kendall Square

in Cambridge, as well as the Big Dig, Boston University,

and Fan Pier in Boston. Spaulding & Slye Colliers was

also a primarily local developer who had done numerous

projects in Boston. This accumulated expertise and prior

relationships were crucial to the very quick, eighteen

month planning process that needed extensive public

ground work because of the three municipalities that

were involved and the related community groups.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y34

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y34

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y35

analysisThe architect is critical in the formation of a team identity because it is their ability to simultaneously design in the

macro and micro that allows a realistic vision to be pursued and executed. The physical manifestations of their

ideas are proof of their creativity and their ability to understand permitting, constructability, developers and all the

obstacles faced in order to complete an original vision. It is through these concrete examples that architects can

gain trust through their colleagues. Working on the Fan Pier with Greenberg Consultants and Spaulding & Slye

Colliers allowed CBT to showcase their abilities and dedication to a vision.

Architects play a significant role in the integrated design process because of their abilities to problem solve and

adapt quickly. Design education focuses on the ability to respond to criticism and feed off ideas from others. This

perfectly suits the integrated design ideals. The assembled team for NorthPoint consisted of numerous people with

design backgrounds that have entered different professional fields. This common foundation enabled discussions

that were able to push and pull each member to bring them to the next level.

The integrated design process is most effective with a local team because of the ease of meeting and the similar

base knowledge set. A local architect contributes to the team identity immediately with their resume of completed

work which has already shaped the area and been accepted by the cities and the communities. The team with the

highest profiled members does not always produce the best results. Team identity is paramount in producing a

great project.

Cre

atin

g Te

am Id

entit

y

36

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

Master Plan Design

Cam

brid

ge R

ezon

ing

of N

orth

Poi

nt S

ite

EN

F Fi

ling

(ME

PA)

DE

IR F

iling

(ME

PA)

PN

F Fi

ling

(Bos

ton)

PU

D F

iling

(Cam

brid

ge)

ME

PA T

rans

. Wor

king

Gro

up C

onve

ned

FEIR

Fili

ng (M

EPA

)

ME

PA A

ppro

val

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

37

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

Smart GrowthInfrastructure RedevelopmentParcel FlexibilityUrbanscapeLandscape

PU

D D

ecis

ion

/ App

rova

l (C

ambr

idge

)

BC

DC

App

rova

l (A

rticl

e 80

)R

espo

nse

to C

omm

ents

(Arti

cle

80)

Arti

cle

80 A

ppro

val

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y38

10 minute

walk

5 minute

walk

T

T

T

T

T

Community College(Orange Line)

Lechmere(Green Line)

Science Park(Green Line)

Boston

Bosto

n

Som

ervil

le

Somerville

Cambridge

Cambridge

N

Rutherford Avenue

Commuter RailLowell Line

UnionSquare

Commuter Rail

Fitchburg / South Acton Line

John

F. F

itzge

rald

Exp

ress

way

Route 1

Interstate 93

Charlestown Avenue

Storrow Drive

Gilmore Bridge

Charles River

Monsignor O

Brien Highw

ay

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

39

SMART GROWTH The theory of smart growth is that

urban development can occur in the center of a city by

advocating ideas of compact neighborhoods, transit-

oriented development, pedestrian and bicycle use, and

environmental qualities. It is a new way of planning that

challenges past planning strategies which encouraged

detached houses and automobile use that resulted

in urban sprawl, traffic congestion, disconnected

neighborhoods, and urban decay. Creating a master

plan that combined a place to work, play, live, and visit

was integral to NorthPoints vision. The site, surrounded

on all sides by multiple transportation choices, such

as MBTA transit stops and major highways, enhanced

the goal. Rather than deciding on a specific building

or use, the teams solution was to organize open space

and an internal public realm to create convenience and

connectivity at a local and regional level to surrounding

communities and cities. The focus was to avoid being

an internal community by bringing presence onto the

street. There were many factors during the process that

produced opportunities for smart growth.

Following smart growth principles can promote

sustainable actions through zoning policies and

redevelopment strategies. Haley & Aldrich assisted

the client with these sustainable solutions to help in the

planning, permitting, regulatory compliance, design and

construction of the buildings, infrastructure and other

facilities.

Reclaiming the Brownfields rail yard site for NorthPoint

was a decision by Guilford Transportation Industries

that led to many sustainable results. Not only did it

provide a site for urban expansion without rural sprawl,

it also allowed for the project to be walking distance to

commercial areas of Boston and Cambridge. The site,

located in three cities, increases its possibility of being

very connected to the outside communities. Bridges over

the major highways will act as physical connectors.

The design guidelines incorporated mixed use

development, affordable housing and market rate

units with a variety of housing types, inclusion of parks

and recreation areas, and limited surface parking into

the plan. It is projected to have 2,700 residences, an

estimated 2.2 million square feet of office, lab, and retail

space, and a 10 acre park centering the 45 acre site.

Like a city within a city, the tight city block structure and

street layout form a compact neighborhood that creates

a pedestrian friendly community that also reduces

vehicular traffic. The ten acres dedicated to park land tie

together the city blocks while also linking bicycle paths

to the adjacent cities.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y40

Proposed vision of the new Lechmere at NorthPoint T station

S

Cambridge Street

Monsignor OBrien Highway1st S

treet

1st S

treet

Ext

ensi

on

LechmereStation

Bus Loading

Lechmere Square

Lechmere T station relocation and Lechmere Square

New Retail EdgeGreen Line Extension

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

41

INFRASTRUCTURE REDEVELOPING AND

PERMITTING Prior to the proposal of NorthPoint, the

cities of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville had been

discussing the extension of the Green Line to Ball Square

in Medford. Since the proposal, the developers planned

to relocate the Lechmere T station across the Monsignor

OBrien Highway in exchange for the redevelopment

of the existing Lechmere T station. This will not only

benefit the MBTA by paving the path for the Green Line

extension, but will also benefit the vision of NorthPoint.

The relocation of the Lechmere T station gave CBT

the opportunity to create a gateway to NorthPoint with

special attention to the organization of building program

and street layouts.

Improving pedestrian access to the site allows for the

desire to connect to existing communities. With the new

transportation hub, people will be constantly moving

through the site and therefore making the park even

more of an accessible public amenity. The location of the

station informed the decision to designate the parcels in

that area for commercial use. Workers at these buildings

would then have easy access to transportation without

disrupting the residential parcels.

The parcels that are adjacent to the new Green Line

route have the tracks integrated into their envelopes,

enhancing the public realm at the entrance to NorthPoint.

The design guidelines require an extension of the existing

retail corridor on First Street into NorthPoint to create a

retail edge along Lechmere Square, which augments this

connectivity. The new retail edge is shown on the bottom

left as the thicker lines around Lechmere Square.

The land given to the developers by the MBTA in

exchange for the redevelopment of the station was

agreed upon through a special permit with the Cambridge

Planning Board. The special permit allowed Cambridge

to agree to minor variances through the writing of the

developers own zoning requirements. This created

flexible parameters that anticipated board member

changes and city changes.

ST

T

LechmereSquare

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y42

PlanMassing16

9 -

031

- 0

22

0 -

020

- 0

182

- 0

125

- 0

288 - 0

144 - 0

221 - 0

VehicularAccess

PrimaryPedestrian Access

North Street

Set B

ack

65 -

0

20 -

0

85 -

0

242

- 0

Reloc

ated E

ast S

treet

Firs

t Stre

et E

xten

sion

VehicularAccess

T Underground

CommercialAccess

185 - 0

PrimaryPedestrianAccess

South Park Street

295 - 0

262

- 0

37 -

0

63 -

0

20 -

0

120

- 0

200 - 0

200

- 0

D -

Stre

et

C -

Cou

rt

Set B

ack

200

- 0

200 - 0

North Park Street

North Street

Primary Pedestrian Access

PrimaryPedestrian Access

VehicularAccess

Configurations of the NorthPoint building types

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

43

PARCEL FLExIBILITY Parcel flexibility is essential to the

success of NorthPoint. Projected to be completed by

2020, the project will most likely experience economic

fluctuations and other changes. CBTs thorough parcel

testing allowed for the flexibility typically absent from

traditional master plans. Each parcel was tested with

residential, commercial, and retail in order to discover

the best solution. With the interest put into the street life

and the eye of the pedestrian rather than specific cornice

lines or brick facades, there is always room for alteration.

This allows each building to play off of their immediate

buildings while still being legible in a larger context.

Architectural expression and diversity was able to be

achieved through this innovative procedure which

enhances the urban realm. For example, a portion of

Parcel T was able to pop up due to the non-prescriptive

nature of the master plan.

Residential

Residential blocks include lofts, townhouses, row houses, and apartments. The first floor should be open towards the street to allow for a community feel with the use of setbacks for stoops, porches, and front gardens. Each facade is to be designed as a front with many entrances off the streets of no more than 75 apart. Courtyards are encouraged to allow for sun exposure. Corner retail is allowed where appropriate.

Commercial and Mixed Use

Mixed Use blocks include housing and / or commercial uses with highly encouraged active uses on the ground floors for the community and the surrounding area, including art exhibition space / display windows, services for the public, shops, restaurants, cafes, exhibition or meeting spaces, and commercial lobbies. Offices are discouraged from the ground level and should occupy no more that 200 to 250 feet. Entrances should relate to crosswalks and pathways to transportation.

Retail

Retail blocks include commercial or residential on upper floors. They should be located where there is a high volume of pedestrian traffic. 75 percent of the street facade should be retail with visibility directly into the interior space. The use of awnings, canopies, and other element should be used to animate the street facade.

S

A

B CD E

F

G

H

IJ K

L

M

N

Q

R

TU

V

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y44

125 - 150

a. Green Fingers Cross Section

15

Pla

nted

Sid

ewal

k

15

Pla

nted

Sid

ewal

k8P

arki

ng L

ane 8

Par

king

Lan

e

16

Roa

dway 16

R

oadw

ay

47 -

72

Pub

licO

pen

Spa

ce(G

reen

Fin

ger)

35 -

55

Pub

licO

pen

Spa

cew

ith S

idew

alk

35 -

55

Pub

licO

pen

Spa

cew

ith S

idew

alk8

Par

king

Lan

e 8P

arki

ng L

ane5

Bik

e La

ne 5

Bik

e La

ne11

Roa

dway 11

R

oadw

ay20

Pla

nted

Med

ian

170b. First Street Extension Cross Section

8P

arki

ng L

ane 8

Par

king

Lan

e10

S

idew

alk

16

Roa

dway 22

R

oadw

ay15

Pla

nted

Sid

ewal

k

70

Pub

licO

pen

Spa

ce

14 Multi Use Trail

147

c. West Boulevard Cross Section

54 - 68

8P

arki

ng L

ane 8

Par

king

Lan

e

22

Roa

dway

8 -

15

Sid

ewal

k

8 -

15

Sid

ewal

k

d. Block Interior/Service Street Section

8P

arki

ng L

ane

22

Roa

dway

Pub

licO

pen

Spa

ceTh

e C

entra

l Par

k

15

Pla

nted

Sid

ewal

k

45

e. Park Perimeter Street Cross Section

Hierarchy guidelines of the NorthPoint streets

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

45

URBANSCAPE The parcel sizes for NorthPoint were

based off a typical block size of East Cambridge in

order to respond to the existing fabric of the surrounding

communities. This aspect was of most concern to the

City of Cambridge. CBT analyzed the block structure

in order to find the correct scale and urban form for the

vision of NorthPoint. The goal was a tight block structure

that facilitated a pedestrian-friendly layout.

The master plan is meant to function as a single network,

a city within a city. The open green space organizes

the blocks and holds the single network together. Each

street was carefully coordinated with one another in

order to specify dimensions for each street type which

will then create a hierarchy of uses throughout the site.

They consist of service roads and multiple streets with

green space integrated with the sidewalk. A new major

street running east-west was inserted into the center of

NorthPoint in hopes to connect East Cambridge to the

new MDC Park along the Charles River. The extension

of First Street into the site as well as the continuation

of the retail edge, which will complement existing retail,

also creates an urban realm.

Setbacks were extensively studied. Every parcels

building must have a setback above no more than sixty

five feet. The design guidelines also require that all

blocks at the ground floor level are to be active during

the day and night and should consist of public amenities

to NorthPoint and surrounding communities. Creating

a community that is sensitive to the human scale was

encouraged. The single network conveys the hierarchy

of roads, clarity of circulation, human scale, and public

realm.

Monsignor OBrien Highway, previously non-pedestrian

friendly, is receiving five new pedestrian crossings

including overhead crosswalks that connect directly to

the new MBTA Lechmere station. The new crossings will

help connect NorthPoint to the existing communities.

S

a.b.

d.

c.

e.

New Pedestrian Crossings

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y46

S

Cambridge Street

Monsignor OBrien Highway

1st S

treet

Land

Bou

levar

d

Char

lesto

wn A

venu

e

Lechmere Canal

Rendering by Michael van Valkenburgh Associates of Central Park

Storm water runoff to Lechmere Canal

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

47

LANDSCAPE The NorthPoint Park consists of a central

park, green fingers, and a west boulevard green. These

spaces are important for the transformation of the site

into a community. The PUD zoning for Cambridge

required that the development include 2.5 acres of green

space. The developers were dedicated to creating a

vision with the insertion of a park so that it would act as a

place maker and get people familiar with the area. They

convinced the investors that a larger park would help sell

the vision. The final proposal exceeds the requirement

at 5.5 acres.

As part of the single network, the central park and

green fingers arrange the urban blocks on the site while

providing gathering space for informal residential and

cultural activities, a half acre wetland, a pond, and a

pavilion. The East Cambridge Planning Study states that

there is very little opportunity in the existing dense area

for public open space and that new park development

would have to occur on the outskirts. NorthPoint

creates green space that has a sense of inclusion with

the surrounding communities. The park is seen as a

connector piece that mends the breaks between the

existing green spaces by linking them to the central park

through the green fingers.

Aside from the connector aspect, the park also gathers,

cleanses, and transports the storm water for the site

through a retention pond. CBT worked very closely with

the engineers to integrate storm water drainage and

parking spaces into the design of the park. With 5,000

meters of parking area, CBT pushed for the manipulation

of the grades in order to place the parking underground

without it actually being below grade. The park will

improve water quality and control runoff through the

integration of sedimentation fore bays, vegetated water-

quality swales, and low impact development techniques

such as rain gardens. NorthPoints team is replacing the

actions that were traditionally naturally carried out by the

former Millers River with the park. The drainage is to

empty out into the Lechmere Canal located south of the

site and just north of Cambridgeside Galleria Mall.

S

Green Fingers

Central Park

West Boulevard Green

Charles RiverBasin Park &Dr. Paul DudleyWhite Bicycle Path

SomervilleCommunity Path

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y48

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y48

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y49

analysisThe NorthPoint master plan is meant to read as a single network that emits a public realm. It is the twenty proposed

parcels which make up this single network. The intricacy of the parcel relationships is what CBT brought to the table

as both master planners and architects. Rather than a pretty picture, they were interested in how all these pieces

could interact together without being dictated by program. An architect is well suited to coordinate the whole while

focusing on one element of a whole.

Surrounded by infrastructure on all sides, the site posed a challenge for the integration of existing communities.

CBT used the relocated Lechmere station into NorthPoint as an incentive to create a larger gateway into the new

community. The focus was on organizing a transportation hub for people living, working, visiting, and playing.

Flexibility is crucial to the success of a master plan. Typical master plans are trapped by the preliminary pretty picture.

CBTs attention to detail was manifest during the parcel testing stage. Each parcel was rigorously challenged by all

possible building programs. At the same time, the relationship between each parcel was studied so that the best

solution could be discovered. The success of each small scale relationship enhanced the large scale relationship

of the master plan to the existing communities.

Special attention to human scale was the driving force to achieve the public realm. CBT organized the streets into

hierarchies which are woven between tight block structures, similar to a city. Appropriate setbacks were used in

order to avoid towering blocks. The streets are to have activity day and night allowing for twenty four hour life.

The public green spaces are the glue that holds all the other master plan elements together. It also manages the

storm water drainage and underground parking. CBT worked very closely with the engineers in order to integrate

the three programs of the park together.

Des

igni

ng T

he M

aste

r Pla

n

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y50

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y51

2001

2000 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2002

2004

2003 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

2005

SitingFormPlan and SectionElevation

Sierra Building Design

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y52

A

B CD E

F

G

H

IJ K

L

M

N

Q

RS

TU

V

Residential, Commercial or Mixed use

Commercial

Residential

150 - 220

120

65 - 85

Conceptual Land Use

Zoning Envelope

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y53

COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL

PARk

ExISTING

PARkING

LOBBy

SITING Parcel S, the Sierra Building, was not

predetermined for a specific program, it was available

for Residential, Commercial/Mixed use, or Retail. Its

location on the site places it on the Cambridge portion

of NorthPoint, sandwiched between existing residential

development and the central park on the south and north

respectively, and a commercial and a residential building

on the west and east respectively. Its surroundings give

it four facades that all face different types of neighbors.

Because Parcel S is on the south part of the site closest

to Cambridge, it was designed to be topped off at 81

feet. This followed the design guidelines which specified

65-85 feet. The building is sited on the parcel away

from the commercial, and towards Parcel T to the west.

This allows for a dialogue between the two residential

buildings which were built at the same time. It also

creates a larger buffer between the residential units and

the commercial parcel. The ground floor units with direct

access to the street are located on the three sides of the

building that face away from the commercial zone, and

instead towards the park and residential buildings.

As master planners and designers of this building, CBT

was well versed in the hierarchy of streets. This can

be seen by the location of the lobbies of Parcel S and

Parcel T. The lobbies face each other and open out

on to one of the designed green fingers which creates

a common interstitial social space and links the two

buildings to each other as well as to the central park.

The parking entrance faces away from the residential

areas and is placed on the street that is trafficked mostly

by vehicles and thus avoids conflict with pedestrians.

The plan of the building is also affected by the hierarchy

of the streets. That same side also internally features a

large transformer room in the plan.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y54

Primary Pedestrian Access

South Park Street

South Drive

Reloc

ated E

ast S

treet

127

- 0

130 - 0

128

- 0

65 -

0

85 -

0

20 -

0

Vehicular Access

Sample Envelope

Building Envelope

Plan

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y55FORM The Eastern Cambridge Design Guidelines

for NorthPoint organizes criteria for the overall scope

of building design, as well as the information for each

specific parcel. To the right is the specified criterion for

Parcel S on which the Sierra Building was constructed.

The diagrams on the opposing page begin to layout basic

information such as the entry points, length, width, and

height, to give an example of the possible massing for

the building designer. The final massing of the designed

Sierra Building is similar in shape to the example, but

differs slightly in that instead of a U-shaped plan it has

an interior courtyard, and the building meets the street

edge at all four sides. The building was able to change

do to the flexibility of the master plan guidelines. The

double line at the bottom of most of the parcels sample

envelopes highlights the overall agenda of having a very

pedestrian friendly master plan by putting an emphasis

on designing the ground floor at a human scale.

The final building statistics are very close to the

approximate dimensions originally provided.

Sierra Building Design Guidelines:

The envelope of the building is 6-7 story perimeter

building with a line of expression at the second floor

level. The line of expression defines the base and is

intended to humanize the scale of the building and

create an intimate pedestrian experience. This should

be achieved by means of material articulation or

architectural detailing. Each base, in its entirety, will be

designed to give the appearance of greater height than

any single floor in the middle. The first floor may be

elevated on one-half level above grade parking.

Building design shall also give special consideration to

the streetscape and scale of the South Park Street and

conform to the overall legibility of the street. Projections

like bow windows, balconies and terraces are encouraged

on all sides to take advantage of both sun and

spectacular views of the park. It should also contribute

to the character and scale of the finger. Building design

shall make a special effort to respond to and integrate

the adjoining Charles E. Smith development.

Approximate Dimensions:

Parcel Size: 19,500 SFGross Square Footage: (+/-) 112,000 SFUses: Mixed Use, Residential or CommercialNumber of Dwelling Units: (+/-) 95Parking Levels: Below grade, one half level above gradeMaximum Height of the Building: 85Lot Coverage: 100%Primary Pedestrian Access: South Park Street, C CourtVehicular Access: Relocated East Street

Final Dimensions:

Parcel Size: 19,500 SFGross Square Footage: 136,665 SFUse: ResidentialNumber of Dwelling Units: 99Parking Levels: Below gradeHeight of the Building: 81Primary Pedestrian Access: South Park Street, C CourtVehicular Access: Relocated East Street

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y56

Balconies

Entries/StoopsResidential Entries and Stoops

Residential Facade Details

Residential Massing Example

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y57

FORM The Eastern Cambridge Design Guidelines for

NorthPoint focused on form in terms of size, program,

and elements. Studies of existing neighborhoods

enlightened a few elements that could be used in a

variety of ways to create the desired environment while

weave the existing communities to NorthPoint.

The emphasis on the pedestrian scale is shown once

again in the residential massing example on the opposite

page. In the Sierra building shown below, the overall

massing takes on a much more pure rectangular form

and uses material change to achieve the desired effect

of a differentiated ground floor, rather than the setbacks

noted in the design guidelines. The color and size

changes are only the beginning of bringing the scale

of the building to the pedestrian. Most of the units on

the ground floor open to the street, and are mediated

by stoops and plantings. The ground floor windows

look onto the street and provide the eyes on the street

concept in the master plan to make it more walkable and

pedestrian friendly. Privacy is maintained by operable

wooden slat screens. The design guidelines recommend

balconies, possibly to break down a faade to the human

scale, but CBT reinterpreted the concept of the balcony

to fit the contemporary vision of the master plan. The

balconies are simple railings on the upper floors with

operable doors that extend the units into the site through

sight, smell, and sound, rather than a physical protrusion

from the building.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y58

Typical Loft Floor Plan

Typical Floor Plan

BAMBOO GARDEN

LIGHT wELL

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y59

Building Section

PLAN AND SECTION The basic layout of the Sierra

Building is a central, full height light well surrounded

by double height loft units. The lack of a back to the

site informed this layout by providing four equally

exposed sides. The plan was heavily influenced by the

integrated design process which allowed the architects

to show many renditions and options for opportunities in

the building, and not just design what they thought the

other side wanted. For example, the light well began

as a discussion with the construction manager, client,

and developer of common space on the roof, which was

then changed to an atrium, and finally a light well. The

final configuration evolved over time as each phase of

design was followed by a budgeting estimate and value

engineering exercise by the construction manager.

The vision of NorthPoint was to create a new, modern

community for work and life, and the plan of the Sierra

Building exemplifies that vision with open floor plans,

double height loft units, and contemporary finishes.

The goal of the residential buildings in the master plan

is to attract a younger audience. Targeting a younger

clientele is important in a master plan of this scale and

complexity because it is much harder to get older people

to invest in a project that is slated to take 15 years to

complete. In interviews with CBT and Lisa Serafin,

they both iterated that to have value you must build

something different. The double height loft units achieve

that goal. The double height units have a significant

effect on the plan and section of the Sierra Building.

The loft plan allows for a double height living room that

links the two floors to the 14 foot glazing that separates

the units from the exterior. In section the units are only

entered at every other floor, which allows for a skip stop

elevator system and frees additional room on the upper

floors because of the lack of need for corridors. In some

cases, the eliminated corridor on the loft floor opens

up cross ventilation for 8 units on every floor that have

access to the light well. The light well provides light

and ventilation to the corridors on the typical floors as

well. The bamboo garden in the light well can be seen

as a visual amenity as well as a social link between the

garden and the bamboo floors of the units.

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y60

South Elevation

East Elevation

West Elevation

Building Entry

Parcel T Building behind

Parking Entry

Stoops/Entries

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y61

North Elevation

ELEVATION The elevations of the Sierra Building convey

the contemporary vision of NorthPoint while mostly

adhering to the East Cambridge Design Guidelines.

The double height windows, smooth panels, and

large gestures such as the white paneled wrapper are

stylistically very contemporary. The stoops and the

double height glazing on the first floor provide the eyes

on the street to penetrate through the ground floor,

the white paneled wrapper differentiates the rest of the

building from the darker gray panels, and the building

entries for pedestrians on the east and cars on the west

are clearly defined.

The major departure from the guidelines is seen in the

smoothness of the faade. The guidelines ask residential

buildings to have varied architecture and avoid flat

facades by using bays, balconies, porches, stoops, and

other projecting elements. Although there are balconies,

they are flush with the building. The variation in form

is subdued and only reveals itself at building entrances

and in the white wrapper panels. The guidelines also

suggest rhythm and variation appropriate to the urban

context such as smaller bays along residential streets

and larger bays on commercial and retail streets. This

idea of bays can be seen on the east and west facades

through the use of the different colored panels and the

slight depth change, but the north and south facades are

one large bay.

It is clear from the detailing of the building that much of

the resources were put into the ground floor elevations,

reaffirming the importance of the pedestrian in order to

avoid unwelcoming spaces. The ground floor becomes

much more tactile, varied and appropriate to the human

scale then the upper floor massing with wood slats and

decking, steel framing, textured panels and plantings.

The wood slats and steel canopies on the first floor only

go up to half of the height of the loft to also help bring

down the scale.

Building Entry

Parcel T Building behind

Parking Entry

Stoops/Entries

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y62

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y62

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y63

analysisThe Sierra Building at NorthPoint is an important milestone as it is the first physical realization of the large and

complex master plan. The difficulty in the design of this building was to balance between its freedom of being

a pioneer and the guidelines of the master plan. The final result had to be successful before and after the other

elements of the master plan fill in. The decision makers for NorthPoint thought it was prudent to choose CBT,

the master planners, to design the building because of their knowledge of the project, their understanding of the

community, their relationship with the developers, and their success in similar buildings in the area. The first

building sets the tone for the rest of the buildings and it is crucial for it to succeed in the vision of the master plan in

siting, form, plan, section, and elevation.

The choice in the siting of the building on parcel S was very limited due to the well thought out master plan in which

they tested every parcel for building sizes. The success in the Sierra building siting was the relationship between

the surrounding streets and their interaction. It is clear from the layout of the plan that the architect was well versed

in the overall scope of the master plan and was able to use that to inform internal decisions that have a much larger

reach than that of just the individual building.

The form of the building compromises between the contemporary vision of NorthPoint and the somewhat contradictory

guidelines. NorthPoint wants to provide a new type of contemporary neighborhood for young professionals, and

the Sierra Building provides a very contemporary form. However, this form has a larger scale and does not break

down the overall massing as much as the guidelines suggest with balconies and bays. Being part of the authorship

of these macro design guidelines gave CBT the confidence and leverage to break from them when they felt it more

important to the overall vision.

The plans and sections reveal the attention to detail that CBT provides as architects. The materiality on the ground

floor stoops is contemporary but welcoming to pedestrians. The double height windows allow for deeper units with

details such as an open riser stair allows natural light to filter even deeper into the units.

The elevation, the face of NorthPoint for the time being, immediately advertises to the young demographic they are

pursuing. However, it seems that in this fulfillment of the master plans contemporary vision, the idea of creating

a 21st century city was slightly ignored on the face of the building in terms of sustainability. The 14 foot glazing

on the south side of the building have virtually no protection against the sun and will most likely raise cooling costs

in the summer. The slats screens on the ground floor could have perhaps informed a sun-shading system on the

upper floors that may have better conveyed the promise of a 21st century city.

Des

igni

ng T

he S

ierr

a B

uild

ing

64 C

BT

Cas

e St

udy

Reg

ardi

ng th

e Fu

ture

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y65Conclusion

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y66

Reg

ardi

ng th

e Fu

ture

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y67

CONCLUSION History has taught us that exclusive

attention to either the macro or the micro in master

planning has failed, and in some sense, brought a

negative connotation to the phrase master planning.

Even the adjectival use of master with planning

assumes a dominant and controlling vision. Success in

master planning lies in the integration, coordination, and

organization of detailed flexibility. This detailed flexibility

planning relies on a varied team of experts in which the

architect has a critical role.

CBT showed in this case study the skills that architects

have to provide for a more successful master planning

process. Architects have been accused of being too

image and detail oriented in master planning, but it is the

testing of numerous details and images that allows for

a proven flexibility while showing the three dimensional

implications that these options could create. This

result then provides a plan that is not a deterministic

blueprint that is an end in itself, but rather a detailed

study of the possibilities that future developers and

architects have in creating a unique yet cohesive reality.

Cities are constantly evolving physically, socially, and

economically, and the master planning process must

take that into account.

NorthPoint in essence is a neighborhood plan, an

area of character meant to harmonize with the existing

community. The plan integrates itself with the city

through the macro, such as public transportation, and

the micro, like pedestrian friendly streets and sidewalks.

The integrated plan is a result of the integrated design

process. A master plan striving for detailed flexibility

should have full integration from the beginning of the

process. The coordination and organized exchange of

ideas allows for the necessary holistic yet comprehensive

approach to achieve a successful plan. The combination

of many disciplines in a single discussion propels macro

design decisions while each individual specialty is still

able to think about the micro.

Architects ultimately end up designing individual parcels

in most master plans. Many of the problems constricting

these architects such as unbuildable parcel dimensions

and inflexible design guidelines can be avoided by

having architects participate in the master planning

process. CBT was a large part of the reason why

NorthPoint was awarded the AIA urban planning award.

Just as the public realm organized urban relationships

and buildings in the master plan, CBT bridged that gap

between macro and micro planning. It is architects

detailed training in the built environment and capability

of pursuing a vision that allows them to design space

regardless of the scale. Master planning is a result of an

integration of numerous factors; to be successful it must

be an integrated process.

91 Projects. 91 Projects: Protecting Bostons Future. 91 Projects. http://91projects.com/default.aspx (accessed February 17, 2009)

Bakalos, Aristotle and Kishore Varanasi. Cavin Costello and Elizabeth Utz. In person interview. Boston, MA. 27, February 2009.

Bokov, Anna & Alice Martin. Edge As Center: Envisioning The Post-Industrial Landscape. (2006) (PDF version of document downloaded March 8, 2009)

Childs Bertman Tseckares. Northpoint Master Plan Cambridge MA. Presentation Booklet.

Childs Bertman Tseckares. cbt. Childs Bertman Tseckares. http://www.cbtarchitects.com/ (accessed February 17, 2009)

Clements, Joe. NorthPoint Project Set To Roll After Groundbreaking Event. Banker & Tradesman (March 28th, 2005), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/download/NP_bandt_3.28.05.pdf

Coe, Jon. Plan Ahead: A Short Overview of the Planning Process. (May 2005) (PDF version of document downloaded March 29, 2009)

Community Forum NorthPoint Project Update. (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009)

East Cambridge Design Guidelines: North Point. (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009)

Fitzgerald, Jay. NorthPoint Speeds New T Station Plan. Boston Herald General Economics Reporter (January 12, 2006), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/news_herald_12.01.06.html (accessed February 17, 2009)

Flint, Anthony. Cambridge Neighbors Cool To $1.2B Building Plan. The Boston Globe (November 18, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/globe1118.html (accessed February 17, 2009)

Giddings, Dr. Bob and Bill Hopwood. A Critique of Masterplanning As A Technique For Introducing Urban Design Quality Into British Cities. (PDF version of document downloaded March 24, 2009)

Gillete, Christine. Cambridge Train Yard Made New. Portsmouth Herald (July 07, 1999), http://portsmouthnhemployment.com/1999news/7_30c.htm (accessed February 17, 2009)

Greenberg, Kenneth. Cavin Costello. Phone interview. Boston, MA. 26, February 2009.

Hurley, Mary. Council Discusses North Point Plan. The Boston Globe (July 22, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/Globe_7-22.html (accessed February 17, 2009)

Hurley, Mary. Rezoning Ok Urges Housing, Limits Development In Citys East. The Boston Globe (October 21, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/globe1021.html (accessed February 17, 2009)

Icon Architecture. 2003. North Point Somerville: Planning Study. (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009)

John Moot & another vs. Department Of Environmental Protection & others. http://91projects.com/ (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009)

Jones Lang LaSalle. Jones Lang LaSalle. Jones Lang LaSalle. http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/Pages/Home.aspx (accessed February 17, 2009)

Jones Lang LaSalle. NorthPoint. Jones Lang LaSalle. http://www.northpointcambridge.com/ (accessed February 17, 2009)

CB

T C

ase

Stud

y68

Kindleberger, Richard. New Plan Offered For Cambridge Site. The Boston Globe (May 17, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/northpoint/Globe_5-17.html (accessed February 17, 2009)

Kostaras, Jim. Cavin Costello. Phone interview. Boston, MA. 02, March 2009.

Mccown, James. NorthPoint Exposure. Boston Business Journal (March 15, 2002), http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2002/03/18/focus1.html (accessed February 17, 2009)

Mousalli, Mohammed Said. Inadequacies of Master Planning in the Physical Development of Universities in Saudi Arabia. (PDF version of document downloaded March 29, 2009)

Nagahiro, David. Contemporary Urban In Metropolitan Boston. Multi-Family Trends (October 19, 2005), http://www.northpointcambridge.com/download/NP_multifamilytrends_10.19.05.pdf (accessed February 17, 2009)

NorthPoint Condominiums. Condolicious. NorthPoint Condominiums. http://www.condominiumsatnorthpoint.com/home.htm (accessed February 17, 2009)

NorthPoint Planning Document. (PDF version of document downloaded February 17, 2009)

OConnell, Daniel. Fan Pier & North Point. Massachusetts Building Congress (March 2002), http://www.buildingcongress.org/pdf/2002-03.pdf (accessed February 17, 2009)

Ortiz, David. Another East Cambridge Master Plan: