Net Zero: Right Goal, Wrong Approach

Have feedback? Feel free to leave it in the comments below. Also, we encourage you to visit the Cambridge Civic Journal and participate in the conversation in the ongoing conversation about our statement on the net zero zoning petition.

The members of A Better Cambridge thank the proponents of the Connolly Net Zero Petition for provoking such an important discussion about climate change adaptation in Cambridge. The Connolly Petition has challenged our community to take a serious look at how we will eliminate consumption of fossil fuels and promote alternative energy use across the city of Cambridge.

A better Cambridge is a net zero Cambridge. Eliminating carbon emissions should be a primary goal in Cambridge. We believe that a viable approach to serious energy efficiency in Cambridge relies on a multi-pronged strategy that addresses what we require of new development and how we adapt existing buildings, with a focus on multi-modal transportation throughout. A key achievement will be that carbon emissions are reduced within our city through construction of better and more efficient buildings, without at the same time exporting emissions to communities outside of our borders.

Read more
1 reaction Share

ABC Responds to Forest City's Proposed Design for 300 Mass. Ave

The letter below was recently submitted by A Better Cambridge to the Cambridge Planning Board, in response to Forest City's proposed design for the new building at 300 Mass Ave. Click here to read more background on this issue.

August 5th, 2013

Hugh Russell, Chair
Cambridge Planning Board
344 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Chairman Russell & members of the Planning Board:

On behalf of A Better Cambridge, I write express our organization’s  dissatisfaction with the architectural design for 300 Massachusetts Avenue as presented to the Planning Board on July 9th. A Better Cambridge supported Forest City’s zoning petition in February of this year because the project stands to add vitality to Central Square, improve the public realm of Mass Ave, and reinforce smart growth principles such as locating jobs near transit. However, we also cautioned that in order to be a successful project, the architectural design of the building should be worthy of its highly visible location and sensitive to its neighborhood context. Unfortunately, A Better Cambridge feels the current proposal fails
on both fronts. This type of corporate, nondescript architecture, if approved, will set a poor precedent and stoke fears that Kendall Square is encroaching on Central Square.


We can do, and have done better. For example, 675 West Kendall Street successfully meets the needs of a pharmaceutical company while also respecting the scale and materials of adjacent residential buildings. The building is contemporary, but not corporate; and its mechanical penthouse recedes into the building. There are other examples too. Here are a few lab buildings that successfully integrate into their neighborhood context:


A Better Cambridge urges you to hold a high standard for architecture at 300 Massachusetts Ave (and everywhere in our city). Please vote against the current design for this important site.


Sincerely,

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, Chair
On Behalf of the members of A Better Cambridge

 

Add your reaction Share

← Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
We're Working to Build A Better Cambridge - A Diverse and Dynamic City on the Path to Sustainable Growth