Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Macro and Micro
Macro and Micro
A
B
I
J
G
L
M
N
R
S
T
U
Copyright 2009 by
Northeastern University School of Architecture
All rights reserved
First printing April 2009
Published by
Northeastern University School of Architecture
360 Huntington Ave
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
No part of this publication may be used, reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or
108 or the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the
prior written permission from the authors.
Unless specifically stated otherwise all content is property
of the authors. Every reasonable attempt has been made
to identify owners of copyright, photographs, diagrams
and images. Errors or omissions with be corrected in
subsequent editions.
5
CBT Case Study
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
7
CBT Case Study
abstract
Attention to detail is imperative for the success of a project, since it is the accumulation of details that make up a
whole. On the other hand, attention to the overall vision of a project can help attain projected goals on time and
accurately by understanding how to arrange the details. Many times people lose site of either the big picture or
small picture when working on one or the other. An architect has the ability to coordinate between the macro scale
and the micro scale while integrating the organization of them throughout the process of a project.
The ability to simultaneously design at both the micro and macro level enables a foundation for better technique
in the planning process, which can lead to more successful and sustainable results. Planning is not limited to the
built environment; it also affects policies and funding, regional transportation, relationships, and societal and cultural
issues. However, it is ultimately about the physical environment and including architects may reduce the possibility
of the master plan consisting of only numbers and terms like mixed use development. What does mixed use
development mean in plan? What do these numbers really mean? Planners are often concerned with the pretty
picture, and may lack rigorous thought on the constructability of the parcels being defined. These ideas can benefit
from an 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?
1
CBT Case Study
Table of Contents
Introduction
an evolving city.
to the process.
as well.
Project History
7
CBT Case Study
Site History
NorthPoint Complexity
8
CBT Case Study
TRANSPORTATION
WETLANDS
Neighborhood context
Chapter 91
border
the
north
edge
of
Community Involvement
Tri-City Area
Permitting
MEPA
MUNICIPALITIES
COMMUNITIES
Line.
It
upland land owner and was also reserved for the public
The Commonwealth
The
idea
of
building
on
controversy.
HISTORY
PROJECT
Project Players
DEVELOPERS
DESIGNERS
MARKETERS
Pan Am Railways
Owners
Formerly Guilford Transportation Industries,
Pan Am Railways is a holding company
that manages a Class II regional railroad, a
mid-sized freight hauling railroad, covering
northern New England. They are also referred
to as Boston and Maine, Pan American
Railways, Pan American Systems, Pan
American Airways, and Pan American
Industries.
CEO: Timothy Mellon
Graduate from Yale University with an Urban
Planning degree, Timothy Mellon formed
Guilford Transportation Industries in 1977.
President: David Fink
Engineer
&
Miscellaneous
Eastern
Cambridge
Planning
Study
Committee
The committee works closely with teams of
professional planning consultants and address
issues that include urban design, open space,
land use, zoning, transportation, economic
development and employment.
Co-chairman: Douglas Ling
Conservation Law Foundation
Since 1966, the non-profit, member supported
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
City of Somerville
Mayor: Joseph A. Curtatone
City of Cambridge
Mayor 2000-2001: Anthony D. Galluccio
Mayor 2002-2005: Michael A. Sullivan
State Representative: Timothy Toomey
City Manager: Robert Healy
Urban Planning Consultant: David Dixon
City Councils Ordinance Committee
City Councilor: Michael Sullivan
MUNICIPALITIES
COMMUNITIES
LASALLE
However, Spaulding
the municipalities.
In 2005/2006,
structures.
Their
program.
of their relationship.
efficiency,
environmental
harmony
and
Behnisch
Architekten
Behnisch
Architekten
Phase 1 Construction
Built Parcel
Unbuilt Parcel
Built Park
Unbuilt Park
Childs
Bertman
Tseckares
Architects Alliance
Locality
Integrated Design
approach grew from the mutual trust and vision the team
The team would meet for half day sessions twice a week
integrated design
NorthPoint
Since
Locality
The architect is critical in the formation of a team identity because it is their ability to simultaneously design in the
macro and micro that allows a realistic vision to be pursued and executed. The physical manifestations of their
ideas are proof of their creativity and their ability to understand permitting, constructability, developers and all the
obstacles faced in order to complete an original vision. It is through these concrete examples that architects can
gain trust through their colleagues. Working on the Fan Pier with Greenberg Consultants and Spaulding & Slye
Colliers allowed CBT to showcase their abilities and dedication to a vision.
Architects play a significant role in the integrated design process because of their abilities to problem solve and
adapt quickly. Design education focuses on the ability to respond to criticism and feed off ideas from others. This
perfectly suits the integrated design ideals. The assembled team for NorthPoint consisted of numerous people with
design backgrounds that have entered different professional fields. This common foundation enabled discussions
that were able to push and pull each member to bring them to the next level.
The integrated design process is most effective with a local team because of the ease of meeting and the similar
base knowledge set. A local architect contributes to the team identity immediately with their resume of completed
work which has already shaped the area and been accepted by the cities and the communities. The team with the
highest profiled members does not always produce the best results. Team identity is paramount in producing a
great project.
analysis
2000
2001
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2002
MEPA Approval
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
Smart Growth
Infrastructure Redevelopment
Parcel Flexibility
Urbanscape
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2005
Article 80 Approval
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2004
2003
Landscape
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
lle
rvi
e
me
So bridg
m
Ca
ay
ighw
ssw
ay
So
me
Bo
sto rville
n
nH
xpr
e
Brie
ld E
r O
to
Li
ne
era
o
sign
Com
Low mute
ell L r Ra
il
ine
F. F
itzg
Mo n
lk
e wa
inut
m
10
C
Fi om
tc m
hb ut
ur er
g R
/ S ai
ou l
th
Ac
Joh
n
T
Union
Square
lk
e wa
inut
m
5
Lechmere
(Green Line)
Community College
(Orange Line)
T
Gilmore
Bridge
wn Avenu
the
Ru
Charlesto
iver
Route 1
Cambridge
Boston
rive
Storrow D
Interstate 93
Science Park
(Green Line)
ue
ven
dA
rfor
Charles R
The
design
guidelines
incorporated
mixed
use
Like a city within a city, the tight city block structure and
Following
sustainable
smart
growth
actions
principles
through
redevelopment strategies.
zoning
can
promote
policies
and
Bu
sL
oa
din
eet Ex
tensio
1st Str
Le
St chm
ati er
on e
Le
Cambrid
ch
ge Stree
me
re
Sq
ua
re
Mo
1st Stre
et
ns
ign
or
Br
ien
Hi
gh
wa
and
benefit the MBTA by paving the path for the Green Line
T
S
Lechmere
Square
redeveloping
Infrastructure
Plan
288 - 0
31 - 0
Set Back
North Str
Primary
Pedestrian Access
eet
221 - 0
144 - 0
20 - 0
Set Bac
C - Cou
rt
200 - 0
200 - 0
D - Stre
et
120 - 0
Vehicular
Access
20 - 0
63 - 0
37 - 0
200 - 0
North S
treet
North P
ark Stre
et
200 - 0
Primary
Pedestrian Access
So
262 0
treet E
xtens
ion
ut
29
Pa
rk
St
-0
Primary
Pedestrian
Access
re
et
et
First S
-0
T Underground
Configurations of the NorthPoint building types
24
Re
18
-0
at
e
Ea
st
St
re
Commercial
Access
loc
85 - 0
65 - 0
20 - 0
220 - 0
169 - 0
Vehicular
Access
125 - 0
18
2
-
Massing
Vehicular
Access
Residential
Retail
A
I
J
G
L
M
N
R
V
T
U
15
Planted
Sidewalk
8
Parking Lane
125 - 150
35 - 55
Public
Open Space
with Sidewalk
8
Parking Lane
5
Bike Lane
11
Roadway
20
Planted
Median
11
Roadway
5
Bike Lane
8
Parking Lane
35 - 55
Public
Open Space
with Sidewalk
16
Roadway
47 - 72
Public
Open Space
(Green Finger)
16
Roadway
8
Parking Lane
15
Planted
Sidewalk
8
Parking Lane
10
Sidewalk
22
Roadway
70
Public
Open Space
8
Parking Lane
16
Roadway
15
Planted
Sidewalk
170
15
Planted
Sidewalk
54 - 68
8
Parking Lane
22
Roadway
Public
Open Space
The Central Park
8 - 15
Sidewalk
8
Parking Lane
22
Roadway
8
Parking Lane
8 - 15
Sidewalk
Every parcels
in order to find the correct scale and urban form for the
realm.
d.
b.
e.
c.
a.
New Pedestrian
Crossings
Mo
ns
ign
or
Cambrid
Br
ien
Hi
gh
wa
ge Stree
Ch
ar
les
to
wn
Av
e
1st Stre
nu
e
et
La
nd
B
ou
le
va
rd
Lechmere Canal
into a community.
place maker and get people familiar with the area. They
at 5.5 acres.
NorthPoint
Somerville
Community Path
S
Charles River
Basin Park &
Dr. Paul Dudley
White Bicycle Path
The NorthPoint master plan is meant to read as a single network that emits a public realm. It is the twenty proposed
parcels which make up this single network. The intricacy of the parcel relationships is what CBT brought to the table
as both master planners and architects. Rather than a pretty picture, they were interested in how all these pieces
could interact together without being dictated by program. An architect is well suited to coordinate the whole while
focusing on one element of a whole.
Surrounded by infrastructure on all sides, the site posed a challenge for the integration of existing communities.
CBT used the relocated Lechmere station into NorthPoint as an incentive to create a larger gateway into the new
community. The focus was on organizing a transportation hub for people living, working, visiting, and playing.
Flexibility is crucial to the success of a master plan. Typical master plans are trapped by the preliminary pretty picture.
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.
analysis
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2002
2001
2000
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
Siting
Form
Plan and Section
2005
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
2004
2003
Elevation
0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 1 0 11 1 2
A
B
I
J
G
L
M
N
R
S
T
U
150 - 220
120
65 - 85
Zoning Envelope
park
Commercial
residential
lobby
parking
existing
Sout
h Pa
rk St
reet
Prim
ary P
trian
Acce
12
128 - 0
Re
loc
at
ed
Ea
s
- 0 t Str
ee
t
130 -
edes
Vehicular Access
Sout
h Dr
ive
20 - 0
Building Envelope
Sample Envelope
85 - 0
65 - 0
Plan
ss
Approximate Dimensions:
Final Dimensions:
Balconies
Residential Facade Details
Entries/Stoops
Residential Entries and Stoops
and elements.
look onto the street and provide the eyes on the street
operable doors that extend the units into the site through
bamboo garden
light well
complete.
the building, and not just design what they thought the
The loft plan allows for a double height living room that
the units from the exterior. In section the units are only
community for work and life, and the plan of the Sierra
Building Section
Stoops/Entries
South Elevation
Building Entry
East Elevation
Parking Entry
West Elevation
slight depth change, but the north and south facades are
scale then the upper floor massing with wood slats and
The wood slats and steel canopies on the first floor only
North Elevation
The Sierra Building at NorthPoint is an important milestone as it is the first physical realization of the large and
complex master plan. The difficulty in the design of this building was to balance between its freedom of being
a pioneer and the guidelines of the master plan. The final result had to be successful before and after the other
elements of the master plan fill in. The decision makers for NorthPoint thought it was prudent to choose CBT,
the master planners, to design the building because of their knowledge of the project, their understanding of the
community, their relationship with the developers, and their success in similar buildings in the area. The first
building sets the tone for the rest of the buildings and it is crucial for it to succeed in the vision of the master plan in
siting, form, plan, section, and elevation.
The choice in the siting of the building on parcel S was very limited due to the well thought out master plan in which
they tested every parcel for building sizes. The success in the Sierra building siting was the relationship between
the surrounding streets and their interaction. It is clear from the layout of the plan that the architect was well versed
in the overall scope of the master plan and was able to use that to inform internal decisions that have a much larger
reach than that of just the individual building.
The form of the building compromises between the contemporary vision of NorthPoint and the somewhat contradictory
guidelines. NorthPoint wants to provide a new type of contemporary neighborhood for young professionals, and
the Sierra Building provides a very contemporary form. However, this form has a larger scale and does not break
down the overall massing as much as the guidelines suggest with balconies and bays. Being part of the authorship
of these macro design guidelines gave CBT the confidence and leverage to break from them when they felt it more
important to the overall vision.
The plans and sections reveal the attention to detail that CBT provides as architects. The materiality on the ground
floor stoops is contemporary but welcoming to pedestrians. The double height windows allow for deeper units with
details such as an open riser stair allows natural light to filter even deeper into the units.
The elevation, the face of NorthPoint for the time being, immediately advertises to the young demographic they are
pursuing. However, it seems that in this fulfillment of the master plans contemporary vision, the idea of creating
a 21st century city was slightly ignored on the face of the building in terms of sustainability. The 14 foot glazing
on the south side of the building have virtually no protection against the sun and will most likely raise cooling costs
in the summer. The slats screens on the ground floor could have perhaps informed a sun-shading system on the
upper floors that may have better conveyed the promise of a 21st century city.
analysis
Conclusion
This
process.
It is architects
be an integrated process.
community.
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)
Sources
Kindleberger, Richard. New Plan Offered For Cambridge Site. The Boston Globe (May 17, 2001), http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/
northpoint/Globe_5-17.html (accessed February 17, 2009)