325 Main Schematic Design Review Resubmission - 01252019

325 MAIN STREET
COMMERCIAL BUILDING B
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Design Review Resubmission

Issued January 7, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CORE & SHELL 4. SUSTAINABILITY

1.1 Project Overview/Revised Building GFA 4.1 Narrative
1.2 Revised Building Placement/Massing & Bulk 4.2 Resilience Narrative
1.3 Existing Site Conditions and Context Photographs 4.3 Pathways to Net Zero Statement
1.4 Tower Design 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
1.4.0 Site Plans 4.5 Geothermal Feasibility Assessment
1.4.1 Design Renderings 4.6 Cogen Analysis
1.4.2 Design Model 4.7 Solar Ready Plan/Green Roof
1.4.3 Site Elevations
1.4.4 Site Sections 5. DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.4.5 Building Elevations
1.4.6 Building Sections 5.1 Built Form
1.4.7 Building Plans 5.1.1 Architectural Identity
1.4.8 Enclosure Typology / Finishes 5.1.2 Scale and Massing
1.4.9 Pedestrian / Vehicular Circulation 5.1.3 Park Edges
1.4.10 Ground Level Experience & Through Block Connectors 5.1.4 Visual Interest
1.5 Kendall Plaza to Roof Garden Connection 5.1.5 Tall Buildings
1.6 Signage 5.1.6 Roof Tops
1.7 Architectural Lighting 5.2 Ground Floor
5.2.1 Retail or Mixed-Use Ground Floors
2. LANDSCAPE 5.2.2 Setbacks
5.2.3 Facades
2.1 Open Space Overview 5.2.4 Entrances
2.2 Level 01 Streetscape 5.3 Pedestrian Connections
2.3 Level 02 Terrace 5.3.1 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Connections
2.4 Kendall Square Roof Garden 5.3.2 Visual and Functional Design Intent
5.4 Public Spaces
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.4.1 Definition, Activation, and Interconnection
3.1 Pedestrian Wind Assessment

3.2 Shadow Study 6. RETAIL & ACTIVE USE
3.3 Thermal Comfort study
6.1 Precedent Images
3.4 Noise Impact Analysis 6.2 Public Lobby and Restrooms
325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSION JANUARY 7, 2019 2
1. CORE & SHELL
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW & REVISED BUILDING GFA
325 MAIN STREET
PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT TEAM
Located within the Concept Plan area, the project at 325 Main Street (“Commercial Building B” or “325 Main”) is proposed Developer
to be a commercial office and retail building meeting the requirements of the amendments to Article 14 in the Zoning Ordi-
nance. 325 Main will replace an existing four-story masonry commercial office and retail building located on the Site which
occupies approximately the same footprint as the future Project and contains approximately 117,201 SF of existing gross
floor area (“GFA”). Commercial Building B will have a total GFA of approximately 385,423 SF and be up to sixteen floors plus Design Architect PICKAR D CH I LTON
a mechanical penthouse. The total height will be up to 250’-0” to the last occupied floor, as defined under zoning.

325 Main will significantly enhance and enliven the public realm in multiple ways, including a redesigned ground and second
Architect of Record
floor retail edge along Main Street and the building’s east façade, directly abutting Kendall Plaza, thus enhancing the pedes-
trian experience at the street level and further enlivening Kendall Plaza. In addition, the Project will create a new pedestrian
connection from Kendall Plaza up to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden through a combination of publicly accessible stairs,
a second-level terrace and an elevator, providing an opportunity for multi-level public space and potential programming as
well as increased visual interest on Kendall Plaza. Further, 325 Main will provide enhanced access from Pioneer Way through Landscape Architect
the ground floor retail portion of the building to facilitate pedestrian connection between Ames Street and the Kendall Plaza,
enhance neighborhood connectivity and permeability and enliven the proposed ground floor retail.
Structural Engineer
325 Main will be served by the existing dedicated off-street loading facility for both deliveries and waste management that
is shared with 255 Main and the Marriot Hotel, and accessed from Broadway. The loading dock activities will be managed
so that service and loading operations do not adversely impact traffic circulation on the adjacent local roadways. Parking
for 325 Main will be provided through the existing four garages managed by the Applicant in the area. No parking will be MEPFP Engineer
constructed on-site at Commercial Building B. Additionally, 325 Main will provide one hundred and eight (108) long term

bike parking spaces within the basement and forty-seven (47) short term bike parking spaces at grade distributed at various
entrances to the building.
Civil/Traffic Engineer
REVISED BUILDING GFA
A revised dimensional form summarizing Commercial Building B’s updated GFA, FAR, and overall height is provided under Code Consultant / Smoke Control
separate cover
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter Elevator Consultant
Sustainable Design Consultant
Environmental Scientist

1.2 REVISED BUILDING PLACEMENT/MASSING & BULK
Since the initial Master Plan Amendment and Design Review Filings on September 6, 2018, the Applicant has received numerous comments and questions about Commercial Building B’s scale, massing and bulk
and its relationship to adjacent buildings and open space. In response to the feedback received in joint Planning/CRA Board Hearings, joint Planning/CRA Design Review Committee meetings, CDD/CRA staff
meetings and memos, and community meetings and letters, the Applicant and the design team have made significant modifications to the building’s massing and its relationship to the Site, drawing on geometries
from the surrounding context as shown in Section 1.2. The overall massing has been greatly simplified and large portions of mass have been removed from the east and west sides, reducing its bulk against the sky
plane, providing more separation from adjacent buildings, and creating more visual openness to and from neighboring open spaces.
The primary mass is conceived as a parallelogram simultaneously sliding away from the 355 Main Street building and from the Marriott and Kendall Plaza/Kendall Square Roof Garden connector. The sloped facades
on the east and west sides have been straightened and those facades are now vertical in expression, pulling 325 Main Street farther away from the adjacent buildings and open spaces.
The average lower level floor plates have been reduced by approximately 2,000 square feet (8%) while the average upper level floor plates have been reduced by approximately 3,500 square feet (13%). This
reduces the building’s longitudinal dimension by approximately 20 feet on lower levels and 50 feet on upper levels. Lastly, the average floor to floor heights have been reduced by 1’-0”, allowing one additional floor
to be added while still remaining under the 250-foot height limit and within the allowable GFA limit.
The massing is further modeled through the introduction of shallow inset “apertures” with sloped upper surfaces to create interest and balance in the façade at critical moments, while also providing the opportunity
for outdoor tenant terraces, at the commercial tenant’s election.
A “gasket” element has been introduced to create a visual distinction between Commercial Building B and the 355 Main Street building, preserving the latter’s architectural integrity, particularly at the lower levels
where its distinctive inverted stair-stepped corner cascades down to the street. In addition, along Main Street, the upper floors of Commercial Building B have been pulled approximately 40 feet away from 355 Main
Street, creating a distinct visual separation between the two buildings. The “gasket” itself has been further refined to minimize as much as possible its visual presence while still preserving the connectivity required
by the project. The face of the “gasket” is also sloped, recalling the “apertures” and further emphasizing a visual separation between Commercial Building B and 355 Main Street. The resulting deeply recessed
opening between the two buildings provides an opportunity to create a visual cue to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden’s presence. Pedestrians can access the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden either through
325 Main’s new two-story ground level public lobby directly below the “gasket,” connecting them to the existing garage stair and elevator tower. Or they can continue down Main Street to arrive at the new dramatic
Kendall Plaza/ Kendall Square Rooftop Garden connector.
The overall effect is to create a building with a much more compact and vertical expression, better suited to the location and scale of the Site. As requested by the CRA and CDD, the total square footage and overall
dimensions have been added to each floor plate plan.
Comment Reference: CDD Staff Letter, CRA Staff Letter, Hugh Russell Letter, Chuck Redmon Letter, Joint Board Hearing

1.2 REVISED BUILDING MASSING PLACEMENT AND BULK
OVERLAY OF 09/06 MASTER PLAN DESIGN AND CURRENT DESIGN SHOWING FLOOR PLATE REDUCTION
DECREASED FLOOR
TO FLOOR HEIGHT
ALLOWS FOR
ADDITIONAL FLOOR
AREA AREA SUBTRACTED

SUBTRACTED FROM THE OLD LEVEL 19
FROM MASSING 260’-0”
THE OLD 185’-0” SITE
SITEPROPERTY
PROPERTYLINE
LINE
40’-0” 190’-0” 30’-0”
5CC/3CC Separation 38’-0”
MASSING
LEVEL 19
LEVEL
LEVEL18
18
250’-0”
250’-0”HEIGHT
HEIGHTLIMIT
LIMIT
LEVEL
LEVEL17
17
18’-0”
AREA LEVEL
LEVEL16
16
SUBTRACTED LEVEL
LEVEL15
15 13’-9”
FROM LEVEL
LEVEL14
14
13’-9”
THE OLD 13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL13
13
MASSING AREA13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL12
12
SUBTRACTED
13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL11
11
FROM THE OLD
LEVEL
LEVEL13
13
LEVEL
LEVEL10
10 MASSING
18’-0”
LEVEL
LEVEL12
12
LEVEL
LEVEL99 13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL11
11
244’-6”
244’-6”
LEVEL
LEVEL88 13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL10
10
LEVEL
LEVEL99 LEVEL
LEVEL77 13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL88 LEVEL
LEVEL66 13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL77 13’-9”
LEVEL
LEVEL55
LEVEL
LEVEL66
18’-0”
LEVEL
LEVEL55 LEVEL
LEVEL44
ROOFTOP
ROOFTOPGARDEN
GARDEN
LEVEL
LEVEL44 18’-0”
LEVEL
LEVEL33
LEVEL
LEVEL33
17’-6”
LEVEL
LEVEL22 LEVEL
LEVEL22
17’-6”
LEVEL
LEVEL11 LEVEL
LEVEL11

COMPARISON OF 09/06 MASTER PLAN DESIGN AND CURRENT DESIGN SHOWING FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT REDUCTION
14’9” FLOOR TO FLOOR 13’9” FLOOR TO FLOOR

10’0” CEILING 10’0” CEILING
4’9” FLOOR PLENUM 3’9” FLOOR PLENUM
15 OCCUPIED FLOORS 16 OCCUPIED FLOORS
ABOVE GRADE ABOVE GRADE
239’3” TO MAIN ROOF 244’6” TO MAIN ROOF
SITE PROPERTY LINE 190’-0” SITE PROPERTY LINE

260’-0” 5CC/3CC Separation 33’-0”
LEVEL 18
LEVEL 18
LEVEL 17
EIGHT LIMIT 250’-0” HEIGHT LIMIT
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 16
18’-0”
20’-6” LEVEL 16
LEVEL 15 13’-9”
LEVEL 15
14’-9”
LEVEL 14 13’-9”
LEVEL 14
14’-9”
LEVEL 13 13’-9”
LEVEL 13
14’-9”
LEVEL 12 LEVEL 12
13’-9”
14’-9”
LEVEL 11 LEVEL 11 13’-9”
LEVEL 13 20’-6” LEVEL 13 18’-0”

LEVEL 10 LEVEL 10
LEVEL 12 LEVEL 12
14’-9” LEVEL 9 13’-9”
LEVEL 11 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 11
239’-3” 244’-6”
LEVEL 8 13’-9”
LEVEL 10 LEVEL 8 14’-9” LEVEL 10
LEVEL 9 14’-9” LEVEL 9 LEVEL 7 13’-9”
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 8 LEVEL 8 LEVEL 6 13’-9”
14’-9”
LEVEL 7 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 13’-9”
14’-9”
LEVEL 5
18’-0”
LEVEL 5 16’-6” LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4
P GARDEN LEVEL 4 ROOFTOP GARDEN
LEVEL 4 LEVEL 4 18’-0”
14’-9”
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3
LEVEL 3 LEVEL 3
16’-6” 17’-6”
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2
17’-9” 17’-6”
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1
SEPTEMBER 06 2018 DECEMBER 04 2018

UPPER LEVEL PLAN COMPARISON
246’0” 190’0”
OFFICE
OFFICE
SERV. SERV.
ELEC.
130’0” ELEC.
130’0”
W M W M
LEVEL 12
Level 12 - 27K GFA Office Level 12 - 23.5K GFA Office

0’ 32’ 0’ 32’
239’0” 220’0”
OFFICE
OFFICE
SERV. SERV.
ELEC.
130’0” ELEC.
124’0”
W M W M
Level 7 - 26K GFA Office Level 7 - 24K GFA Office

0’ 32’ 0’ 32’
SEPTEMBER 06 2018 DECEMBER 04 2018

3D VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST
BUILDING PULLS AWAY

FROM MARRIOT TO ALLOW
BUILDING PULLS AWAY FROM FOR LIGHT AND AIR TO
5CC TO REFINE 5CC/3CC ROOFTOP GARDEN
CONNECTION
HORIZONTAL BAND TO
MARK THE TOP OF THE
BUILDING
REDUCE MASSING
OVERLAP TO
ALLOW FOR
LIGHT AND AIR TO
REFINE THE ROOFTOP GARDEN
5CC/3CC GASKET
ROOF/ POTENTIAL TENANT

TERRACES
5CC/3CC GASKET
ENTRY APERTURE TO EXPRESS
DOUBLE HEIGHT PUBLIC LOBBY
ON MAIN STREET
BUILDING PULLS AWAY
FROM PLAZA TO ALLOW FOR APERTURES CREATED TO
LIGHT AND AIR TO PLAZA ARTICULATE THE MASSING
AND ACTIVATE THE EXTERIOR
OF THE BUILDING ROOF/ POTENTIAL TENANT
ROOF/POTENTIAL TERRACES
TENANT TERRACES
REFINE CONNECTION
TO ROOFTOP GARDEN
NOVEMBER 02 2018 DECEMBER 04 2018

3D VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
HORIZONTAL BAND TO
MARK THE TOP OF THE
BUILDING
REFINE THE
5CC/3CC GASKET 5CC/3CC GASKET
ROOF/
POTENTIAL
TENANT
TERRACES
ROOF/POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACES
3CC/5CC ENTRY ROOF/POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACES APERTURES CREATED TO
ARTICULATE THE MASSING
AND ACTIVATE THE EXTERIOR
OF THE BUILDING
ENTRY APERTURE TO EXPRESS
DOUBLE HEIGHT PUBLIC LOBBY
ON MAIN STREET

3D VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
94 10
FT 1F
T
FT
38 FT
24
GASKET REFINEMENT 1 GASKET REFINEMENT 2
94 79
FT FT
FT FT
22 40
GASKET REFINEMENT 3 GASKET REFINEMENT 4

1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KEY PLAN
ST BR
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
WAY
MAIN ST
EI
BR
GALIL
OA
DW
AY
EO
GALIL
MAIN ST
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST

1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
KEY PLAN
ST BR
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST

1.4.0 SITE PLANS
EXISTING PARCELIZATION
The Applicant received comments requesting additional site plans, including the property line and existing and proposed
parcelization changes. In addition, the site plans include the proposed 325 Main Street building, the Green Garage, the Marriot
Hotel and the Kendall Plaza and are provided at ground level and at the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden at level.
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter
EET
STR
PR
BR
OP
ER
TY
OA
LIN
E (T
YIP
DW
CA
L)
4CC AY
ES
LOT A
AM
AMES
RESIDENTIAL
GREEN GARAGE
2CC
LOT C
LOT D
5CC
LOT B 3CC
LOT E KENDALL 1CC LOT F
PLAZA
MAIN STREET
PROPERTY LINE
CRA/CITY PROPOERTY LINE

0’ 100’
FOOT PRINT

1.4.0 SITE PLANS
PROPOSED PARCELIZATION
EET
TR
BR
OA
S
DW
ES
4CC AY
AM
AMES
RESIDENTIAL
GREEN GARAGE
2CC
5CC
3CC 1CC
KENDALL PLAZA
MAIN STREET
PROPERTY LINE
CRA/CITY PROPOERTY LINE

0’ 100’
FOOT PRINT

1.4.0 SITE PLANS
GROUND FLOOR
BR
OA
DW
AY
ST
4CC
ES
AM
PROTO
MARRIOTT
GREEN GARAGE
Existing Loading
Dock Access
3CC
5CC 1CC
KENDALL

PLAZA


MAIN ST
0’ 64’

1.4.0 SITE PLANS
GARDEN LEVEL
BR
OA
DW
AY
ST
4CC
ES
AM
PROTO
MARRIOTT
ROOFTOP GARDEN
Existing Loading
Dock Access
3CC
5CC 1CC
KENDALL
PLAZA
MAIN ST
0’ 64’

1.4.1 DESIGN RENDERINGS
VIEW LOOKING WEST ALONG MAIN STREET
Section 1.4.1 includes updated renderings of Commercial Building B, including
requested views from the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden and ground level views
along Main Street. As shown in Section 1.4.1, Commercial Building B’s frontage
along Main Street will be activated and offer opportunities for multiple entrances,
creating the possibility for a variety of pathways through the Site.
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter, Hugh Russell Letter
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

VIEW LOOKING EAST ALONG MAIN STREET
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST

VIEW LOOKING AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST

VIEW FROM ROOFTOP GARDEN
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST

VIEW FROM BROADWAY
KEY PLAN
BR
ST
OA
DW
ES
AY
AM
MAIN ST

1.4.2 DESIGN MODELS
The CDD requested modifications to the model photos in Section 1.4.2. The size of
the model photos has been increased, and new model photos have been provided
with the proposed MIT SoMa projects removed.
Comment Reference: CDD Staff Letter
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

1.4.2 DESIGN MODELS
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

1.4.2 DESIGN MODELS
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

1.4.2 DESIGN MODELS
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

1.4.2 DESIGN MODELS
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

1.4.2 DESIGN MODELS
VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

1.4.3 SITE ELEVATION ALONG MAIN STREET
EXISTING
Section 1.4.3 contains additional elevations in response to comments received
requesting that elevations include additional context of the full block along Main
Street between Ames Street and the Kendall Plaza. Comparative elevations
showing existing and proposed conditions are also included.
MARRIOTT
EXISTING 5CC EXISTING 3CC

1CC PORTAL
AMES ST. KENDALL PLAZA PARK
0’ 64’

1.4.3 SITE ELEVATION ALONG MAIN STREET
PROPOSED
TOP OF LAST
245’ - 3” OCCUPIED FLOOR
MARRIOTT
5CC
49’ ROOFTOP GARDEN 1CC
3CC KENDALL PLAZA

PORTAL
AMES ST. PARK
0’ 64’

1.4.4 SITE SECTIONS
TRANSVERSE - EXISTING
Section 1.4.4 contains additional sections in response to comments received
requesting that sections include more detailed information of adjacent buildings
and open spaces. Comparative sections showing existing and proposed conditions
are also included.
FUTURE MIT
BUILDING
POTENTIAL VOLPE
DEVELOPMENT
ROOFTOP GARDEN
EXISTING 3CC
MAIN ST
0’ 64’

1.4.4 SITE SECTIONS
TRANSVERSE - PROPOSED
3CC
FUTURE MIT
BUILDING
POTENTIAL VOLPE
DEVELOPMENT
ROOFTOP GARDEN
MAIN ST
0’ 64’

1.4.4 SITE SECTIONS
LONGITUDINAL - EXISTING
MARRIOTT
AMES ST EXISTING 5CC EXISTING 3CC KENDALL PLAZA 1CC
0’ 64’

1.4.4 SITE SECTIONS
LONGITUDINAL - PROPOSED
MARRIOTT
5CC
3CC 1CC
AMES ST. KENDALL PLAZA
0’ 64’

1.4.5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
       
       
 
 




 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 

 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 




 
 


NEW STAIR/ELEVATOR  
 
TO ROOF GARDEN


 
 


 
 
MBTA


HEADHOUSE
(PENDING MBTA 



APPROVAL)


 
 


 
 


 
 
* Floor elevations are measured from sea level 0’ 32’ 0’ 32’
SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

1.4.5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS
       
       
 
 




 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 




 
 


NEW ELEVATOR 



TO ROOF GARDEN


 
 


 
 
MBTA


HEADHOUSE  
(PENDING MBTA  

APPROVAL)

 
 


 
 


 
 
NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION

1.4.6 BUILDING SECTIONS
PENTHOUSE PENTHOUSE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
OFFICE OFFICE
ACTIVE ACTIVE
USE USE
LOBBY LOBBY
STORAGE STORAGE
* Floor elevations are measured from sea level 0’ 32’
LONGITUDINAL

1.4.6 BUILDING SECTIONS
               
 
 


PENTHOUSE PENTHOUSE


 
 


OFFICE OFFICE
 
 


OFFICE OFFICE
 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE OFFICE


 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE OFFICE
 
 


OFFICE 
OFFICE 
 


OFFICE OFFICE
 
 


ACTIVE USE
 
ACTIVE USE  



ACTIVE USE
 
 


STORAGE STORAGE
 
 
TRANSVERSE 1 * Floor elevations are measured from sea level TRANSVERSE 2

0’ 32’ 0’ 32’

1.4.7 BUILDING PLANS
BELOW GRADE LEVEL B1
The Applicant received comments requesting additional information on the plans
for Commercial Building B. Section 1.4.7 contains plans of the revised 325 Main
Street design, including the total gross floor area and overall floorplate dimensions
for each distinct floorplan and a graphic scale. Additionally, a basement plan
showing loading dock access has been provided and spaces for outdoor seating
have been identified.


1CC LOADING
DOCK AND LOADING
BIKE STORAGE
DOCK ACCESS
OFFICE

STORAGE OFFICE STORAGE
RETAIL
3.5K GFA OFFICE - 6.5K GFA RETAIL
LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING - 108 BIKES / 54 RACKS*
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Lobby Mechanical/Storage
Active Use
Elevator Car 0’ 32’
* In all cases 325 Main will meet or exceed the minimum requirements for long term bike parking.

GROUND LEVEL

ENTRANCE PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO POSSIBLE

KENDALL PLAZA,
LEVEL 2 TERRACE, ENTRANCE
AND KENDALL SQUARE
ROOFTOP GARDEN
POSSIBLE
ENTRANCE

RETAIL
ACTIVE USE/
PUBLIC LOBBY

PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
LOBBY
355 MAIN STREET


FCC

PUBLIC ACCESS TO
LEVEL 2 TERRACE
POSSIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS TO
POSSIBLE
MAIN ENTRANCE ENTRANCE LEVEL 2 TERRACE
ENTRANCE
MBTA HEADHOUSE DESIGN

AND REDUNDANT ELEVATOR
PENDING MBTA APPROVAL
6.5K GFA OFFICE - 23K GFA RETAIL MAIN STREET
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 2

 

MEP PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO

KENDALL PLAZA,
LEVEL 2 TERRACE,

AND KENDALL SQUARE
ROOFTOP GARDEN
POTENTIAL
PUBLIC/RETAIL PROGRAMMING
TERRACE ZONE
SERV.

OPEN TO ELEC. RETAIL
BELOW

POTENTIAL MBTA HEADHOUSE

OUTDOOR SEATING ROOF DESIGN AND
REDUNDANT ELEVATOR
PENDING MBTA APPROVAL THIS AREA
1.5K GFA OFFICE - 14K GFA RETAIL PENDING MBTA
APPROVAL)
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 3



PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO
KENDALL PLAZA,
LEVEL 2 TERRACE,
OFFICE AND KENDALL SQUARE

ROOFTOP GARDEN
SERV.

ROOF / POTENTIAL
ELEC. TENANT TERRACE
W M
ROOF / POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACE
21.5K GFA OFFICE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 4

KENDALL SQUARE ROOFTOP GARDEN

POTENTIAL
TENANT BRIDGE


PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO
KENDALL PLAZA,
LEVEL 2 TERRACE,
OFFICE AND KENDALL SQUARE

ROOFTOP GARDEN
SERV. ROOF / POTENTIAL

TENANT TERRACE

ELEC.
W M
ROOF / POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACE
24.5K GFA OFFICE - 2K GFA POTENTIAL TERRACE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 5

OFFICE ROOF / POTENTIAL

TENANT TERRACE
SERV.
OPEN TO BELOW

ELEC.
W M
ROOF / POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACE
20.5K GFA OFFICE - 0.5K GFA POTENTIAL TERRACE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 6

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
22.5K GFA OFFICE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 7

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
23K GFA OFFICE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 8

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
23K GFA OFFICE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 9

OFFICE ROOF / POTENTIAL

TENANT TERRACE
  
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
ROOF / POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACE
23K GFA OFFICE - 0.5K GFA POTENTIAL TERRACE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 10

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
24.5K GFA OFFICE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 11

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
ROOF / POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 12 - 15

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
23.5K GFA OFFICE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

LEVEL 16

OFFICE
SERV.

ELEC.
W M
ROOF / POTENTIAL
TENANT TERRACE
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE


MECH

ROOFTOP MECHANICAL
(SCREENED FROM VIEW)
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

ROOF PLAN

EXTERIOR ROOF

(TOP OF PENTHOUSE)

ROOFTOP MECHANICAL BELOW

(SCREENED FROM VIEW)
AXONOMETRIC
Office Bike Storage
Active Use

1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
ENCLOSURE TYPOLOGY
The Applicant received comments requesting additional detail and clarification
on Commercial Building B’s enclosure. Section 1.4.8 provides updated building
enclosure typology diagrams and renderings showing the revised design and color
palette, including color-coded axonometrics of wall typologies and sample material
palette and finish options. A draft material sample board will also be provided
under separate cover.
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, Hugh Russell Letter
ENCLOSURE TYPE A1
ENCLOSURE TYPE A2
ENCLOSURE TYPE A3
ENCLOSURE TYPE A4

1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
TYPOLOGY / FINISHES
TYPE A1 TYPE A1
a) High Performance Tower Vision Glass
VLT: 61% % Reflectivity: 11%
b) High Performance Ground Level Vision Glass
c) Accent/Stair Stone
Dark Stone Sill
d) Terracotta
Boston Valley Terra Cotta, Mesa or Similar
e) Exterior Aluminum Finish
Dark Red/Black Finish 
f) Exterior Aluminum Finish Alternate

Possible Ranges of Grey
g) Exterior Aluminum Soffit 
Silver Brushed Aluminum Finish
h) Tower Spandrel Glass 
i) Tower Spandrel Glass with Frit


f
h
e a
c b i
b
* PICKARD CHILTON TO PROVIDE MATERIALS SAMPLE BOARD FOR ENTIRE TOWER
*Note: All material finishes are subject to further development during the design process.
325 MAIN Materials and colors shown reflect design intent only, and shouldn’t be considered final. PICKAR D CH I LTON
1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
TYPOLOGY / FINISHES
TYPE A2 TYPE A2
Dark Stone Sill
d) Terracotta
e) Exterior Aluminum Finish
Dark Red/Black Finish

g) Exterior Aluminum Soffit 
h) Tower Spandrel Glass 



f
h
e a
c b i
1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
TYPOLOGY / FINISHES
TYPE A3 TYPE A3

c) Accent/Stair Stone 
Dark Stone Sill
d) Terracotta

Boston Valley Terra Cotta, Mesa or Similar 
e) Exterior Aluminum Finish  
f) Exterior Aluminum Finish Alternate 

g) Exterior Aluminum Soffit 
Silver Brushed Aluminum Finish  
h) Tower Spandrel Glass

 


f
h
e a
c b i
1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
TYPOLOGY / FINISHES
TYPE A4 TYPE A4
Dark Stone Sill
d) Terracotta
e) Exterior Aluminum Finish 

g) Exterior Aluminum Soffit

h) Tower Spandrel Glass
i) Tower Spandrel Glass with Frit 



f
h
e a
c b i
1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
RENDERING / TYPE A1
KEY - NORTHWEST
KEY - SOUTHEAST
RENDERINGS ARE CONCEPTUAL, FINAL MATERIALS AND COLORS TO BE DETERMINED

1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
RENDERING / TYPE A2
KEY - NORTHWEST
KEY - SOUTHEAST

1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
RENDERING / TYPE A3
KEY - NORTHWEST
KEY - SOUTHEAST

1.4.8 ENCLOSURE
RENDERING / TYPE A4
KEY - NORTHWEST
KEY - SOUTHEAST

1.4.9 PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
The Applicant received comments requesting additional detail and clarification
on loading access and bicycle parking and circulation through and around the
building. As shown in Section 1.4.9, cyclists seeking long-term secured bike
parking in Commercial Building B will enter the building through the lobby on Main
Street or Pioneer Way and will access the below-grade bike parking by elevator.
Short-term bicycle parking associated with Commercial Building B is distributed
around the Site in recognition of the various entrances and directions from which
cyclists may be coming. All project-related short-term bicycle parking is located
on site along Main Street, in Pioneer Way, and on Kendall Plaza adjacent to the
Marriott.
Ex
isti
ng
CR
AE
ase
me
nt
Building Entrances
Ma
jor
Pu
Ma blic S
Garden /
T
in tre
et
Terrace Access
Pedestrian Circulation
Bike Paths
Proposed Visitor/ Employee

Drop Off Vehicle Paths
Bus Stop
Vehicle Parking
Blue Bike Parking Non-Project-Related Bike Parking
T Kendall/MIT Station Short Term Bike Parking
Active Use Access to Long Term Bike Parking

T

1.4.9 PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
Existing Loading
BIKE STORAGE
Dock Access
OFFICE

STORAGE OFFICE STORAGE
RETAIL
325 Main Street

Loading and Trash Removal
 Existing MBTA to Occur to/from Existing Below
Station to Remain Grade Loading Dock
0’ 32’

1.4.10 GROUND LEVEL EXPERIENCE & THROUGH BLOCK CONNECTORS
The Applicant received comments requesting additional detail and clarification of the ground plane, including the pedestrian experience along Main Street, the visual clarity of the 2-story entrance volume from
Main Street, the through block connectors and the space between 325 Main Street and the MBTA Outbound Headhouse. Section 1.4.10 provides additional renderings, axonometrics, building plans and sections
of these areas, including proposed building overhangs and canopies. Ground level studies showing the relationship of the building footprint to the sidewalk have been included showing that the sidewalk width on
the Main Street frontage is being increased 2 feet from 22 feet in the existing condition to 24 feet in the proposed condition.
As shown in Section 1.4.9, the Project’s frontage along both Main Street and the Kendall Plaza will be activated and offer opportunities for multiple entrances, creating the possibility for a variety of pathways through
the Site, connecting Pioneer Way to both the Kendall Plaza and Main Street. The existing pedestrian connection from Kendall Plaza to Pioneer Way will be maintained at the ground floor, but could be re-imagined if
the retail programming follows a more “market-like” permeable model increasingly seen in urban areas (Refer to Chapter 6 for more detail). In addition, the through-block connector from Main Street to Pioneer Way
will be maintained, but will be greatly improved. It will become a double height space, growing from approximately 18 feet to 35 feet in height, with second level retail storefront visible and potentially accessible from
within the through-block connector. The double height nature of this space is reflected on the Main Street façade and serves to signal access through the site to the Green Garage and the Kendall Square Rooftop
Garden above.
In response to comments received regarding the potential for skylights along the northern edge of the ground floor retail, sections are provided. The location of the northern building line in this area is due to
the required separation distance of Commercial Building B from the Green Garage in order to maintain the latter’s open ventilation. Given the narrowness of this space, it’s depth between the two buildings, and
maintenance concerns, a skylight in this area will not be pursued.
A plan dimensioning the space between 325 Main Street and the MBTA Outbound Headhouse is included, showing that adequate width is being provided. As the Headhouse enclosure is glass, this are will be
visually open to Kendall Plaza.
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter, Chuck Redmon Letter, Hugh Russell Letter, Joint Board Hearing

BR
OA
DW
AY
ST 4CC
ES
AM
VEHICLE PARKING
ACCESS
PROTO
LOADING DOCK
ACCESS
MARRIOTT
3CC
5CC 1CC
KENDALL

T PLAZA

T

MAIN ST
Public Circulation Public Plaza Existing Vertical Circulation

T MBTA Station Retail/Active Use 0’ 64’
Bike Lanes Public Roof Garden Proposed Vertical Circulation Tenant Lobby

VIEW FROM MAIN STREET LOOKING NORTHEAST

VIEW FROM MAIN STREET LOOKING NORTHWEST
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

SOUTHEAST AXON

SOUTHWEST AXON

SETBACK/
1.4.10 AWNING
GROUND LEVEL EXPERIENCE & THROUGH BLOCK CONNECTORS
RET
ACTIVE USE/
PUBLIC LOBBY
RES
LOBBY
STREET
FCC
POSSIBL
POSSIBLE
MAIN ENTRANCE ENTRANC
ENTRANCE
B A

325 MAIN
CRA CDD PLANNING BOARD DESIGN REVIEW DECEMBER 19, 2018
PICKAR D CH I LTON
27
 

1.4.10 GROUND LEVEL EXPERIENCE & THROUGH BLOCK CONNECTORS 





 

 



 

 

  8 FT 
 
3 FT



  


MAIN STREET 
MAIN STREET



SECTION A SECTION B


GREEN GARAGE
MEP
SECOND FLOOR
RETAIL
PIONEER
WAY
ACTIVE USE/ TENANT LOBBY

PUBLIC LOBBY
MAIN STREET

FLOOR PLANS

Public Public
Lobby Lobby
EXISTING CONDITION PROPOSED CONDITION

22 FT 24 FT

LEVEL 16 LEVEL 16

13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC
LEVEL 15 LEVEL 15
13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC
LEVEL 14 LEVEL 14
13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC
LEVEL 13 LEVEL 13
Rooftop EXISTING 3CC
ROOF
EXISTING 3CC
ROOF
EXISTING 3CC
ROOF
Garden 13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC
LEVEL 12 LEVEL 12
OFFICE EXISTING 3CC

OFFICE EXISTING 3CC OFFICE EXISTING 3CC OFFICE
13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC
LEVEL 11 LEVEL 11
EXISTING 3CC EXISTING 3CC EXISTING 3CC
OFFICE LEVEL 3
OFFICE LEVEL 3 OFFICE LEVEL 3 OFFICE
18’ 18’
EXISTING 3CC3CC EXISTING 3CC3CC EXISTING 3CC

OFFICE LEVEL 2 OFFICE LEVEL 2 OFFICE LEVEL 2 OFFICE
LEVEL 10 LEVEL 10
RETAIL PUBLIC TENANT TRANSITION

Pioneer RETAIL PUBLIC
13’9” 18 FTTENANT
FLOOR TO FLOOR TRANSITION 13’9” 18 FT FLOOR TO FLOOR
5CC PUBLIC TRANSITION
ZONE RETAIL PUBLIC TRANSITION
18 FT FLOOR TO FLOOR
ZONE RETAIL
LOBBY ZONE 3CC LOBBY ZONE 3CC
BEYOND
LOBBY BEYOND WayBEYOND LOBBY
BEYONDEXISTING 3CCLEVEL 9
GROUND LEVEL BEYOND BEYOND EXISTING 3CCLEVEL 9
GROUND LEVEL Main Street LOBBY LOBBY
EXISTING 3CC
GROUND LEVEL
13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC
LEVEL 8 LEVEL 8
B A
SECTION A 13’9”
3CC
13’9”
3CC
SECTION B 3CC
13’9”
EXISTING PUBLIC LOBBY
13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC 3CC

B A
13’9” 13’9” 13’9”
3CC 3CC 3CC

Rooftop OFFICE 3CC

LEVEL 4
OFFICE 3CC
LEVEL 4
OFFICE 3CC
LEVEL 4
OFFICE
Garden
3CC 3CC 3CC

OFFICE LEVEL 3 OFFICE LEVEL 3 OFFICE LEVEL 3 OFFICE
17.5 FT 17.5 FT 17.5 FT

RETAIL BEYOND RETAIL BEYOND
RETAIL RETAIL
PUBLIC PUBLIC
3CC
LEVEL 2
3CC
LEVEL 2
35 FT FLOOR TO FLOOR PUBLIC PUBLIC
3CC
LEVEL 2
LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY LOBBY
POTENTIAL POTENTIAL
RETAIL BEYOND
DISPLAY AREA Pioneer
TENANT LOBBY RETAIL BEYOND
17.5 FT
DISPLAY AREA
3CC
TENANT LOBBY
17.5 FT
3CC 5CC TENANT LOBBY RETAIL
17.5 FT
3CC
TENANT LOBBY RETAIL
BEYOND BEYOND
Way Main Street
GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
BEYOND BEYOND
B A
SECTION A SECTION B
PROPOSED PUBLIC LOBBY


256’0”


TRANSVERSE SECTIONS
260'6" TO 
TOP OF 

BUILDING
ENTRANCE PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO
POSSIBLE
MEP
KENDALL PLAZA, KENDALL PLAZA AND
KENDALL SQUARE
AND KENDALL SQUARE ROOFTOP GARDEN 
ROOFTOP GARDEN 
PUBLIC/RETAI

41’ SERV.
POSSIBLE
ENTRANCE
TERRACE

9’
RETAIL 
ACTIVE USE/
PUBLIC LOBBY
OPEN TO 256’0” ELEC. RETAIL
41' BELOW

MINIMUM SETBACK
PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
LOBBY 14’
PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO
7’ 
ENTRANCE
LEVEL 2 TERRACE AND
KENDALL SQUARE
ROOFTOP GARDEN

EET

FCC

PUBLIC ACCESS TO 

LEVEL 2 TERRACE
POSSIBLE POTENTIAL
MAIN ENTRANCE MUST MAINTAIN OPEN ENTRANCE LEVEL 2 TERRACE
ENTRANCE OUTDOOR SEATING
RED
  MBTA HEADHOUSE DESIGN PENDIN
RETAIL
325 MAIN ACTIVE USE/ PICKAR D CH I LTON
DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSION JANUARY 7, 2019 PUBLIC LOBBY 77

1.5 KENDALL PLAZA TO ROOF GARDEN CONNECTOR
A substantial terraced and landscaped connection is proposed between the Kendall Plaza and the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden and is a significant new public benefit in the IDCP associated with Commercial
Building B. This connection provides highly visible stair and elevator public access between Main Street/Kendall Plaza, a new second level terrace overlooking Kendall Plaza, and the Kendall Square Rooftop
Garden. The design also offers additional opportunities for programming, supplementing the existing programming already sponsored by the Applicant within Kendall Plaza and further reinforcing the Plaza’s
importance as the heart of activity within the Kendall Square district.
The Applicant received many comments on the design of the proposed new connection primarily focused on the form and location of the stair from Main Street to the second level terrace and the elevator and stair
from the second level terrace to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden. In response to comments received, specifically at the joint Design Review Committee meeting on 12/19/18, the design has been modified to
push the elevator to the west within the footprint of the building. Additionally, the stair orientation has been revised to create a stair that is inviting and welcoming to the public, pleasantly open to the sky at every
point along it and also offers multiple overlooks from which to view Kendall Plaza, while still preserving the functional utility of the second level terrace. The revised design of these elements is intended to signify
their importance as civic amenities, ensure that they are visually and physical accessible to the general public, and create a visual cue to lead the eye and the visitor up to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden.
Appropriate wayfinding and environmental graphics will also be provided to guide visitors.
As shown on the drawings, the portion of the proposed second-level terrace over the MBTA Headhouse is subject to MBTA. The plans in Section 1.5 show the 3 options that the Applicant has submitted to the
MBTA for their review and approval.
In response to comments received, the Applicant and designed team studied a potential reduction of the westernmost bay of the trellis attached to the Marriott hotel. As shown in the renderings in Section 1.5, with
the revised stair and elevator design, this bay of the trellis does not visually interfere with the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden connector. The Applicant proposes instead to look at ways to improve this trellis through
a potential lighting or art strategy.
For further details on proposed improvements to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden, please refer to Chapter 2.
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter, Chuck Redmon Letter, Joint Board Hearing

PRECEDENT IMAGES
CONNECTING PUBLIC SPACES
325 Main offers a unique opportunity to create a new, highly visible pedestrian
connection between the existing Kendall Plaza and the Kendall Square Rooftop
Garden. As seen in these precedent images, a visually dynamic connection could
be created through a series of stairs, terraces and an elevator.

CURRENT SCHEME
STUDY OF POTENTIAL TRELLIS REDUCTION
T SCHEME
POSSIBLE PORTION OF
TRELLIS REDUCTION
POSSIBLE
PORTION
OF TRELLIS
REDUCTION

2
PLAZA CONNECTION STUDY
*STUDY OF POTENTIAL TRELLIS REDUCTION

STAIR OPTIONS DISCUSSED AT THE JOINT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING 12/19

REVISED STAIR/ELEVATOR DESIGN
PUBLIC
ELEVATOR
PUBLIC
STAIR
POTENTIAL
OUTDOOR
SEATING
ZONE
POTENTIAL
PROGRAMMING
ZONE
MBTA HEADHOUSE AND

PUBLIC REDUNDANT ELEVATOR
STAIR DESIGN PENDING MBTA
GREENARY CONNECTS APPROVAL
ROOFTOP GARDEN TO
PLAZA

PUBLIC
ELEVATOR
PUBLIC
STAIR
POTENTIAL
OUTDOOR
SEATING
ZONE
POTENTIAL
PROGRAMMING
ZONE
MBTA HEADHOUSE AND

REDUNDANT ELEVATOR
DESIGN PENDING MBTA
APPROVAL
PUBLIC TERRACE
POTENTIAL TENANT
TERRACE

PUBLIC
ELEVATOR
PUBLIC
STAIR
POTENTIAL
OUTDOOR
SEATING
ZONE
POTENTIAL
PROGRAMMING
ZONE
MBTA HEADHOUSE AND

REDUNDANT ELEVATOR
DESIGN PENDING MBTA
APPROVAL
CIRCULATION

1.5
LEVEL 02 TERRACE
PLAN
LEVEL 02 ALTERNATIVES
MARRIOTT MARRIOTT MARRIOTT
3CC 3CC 3CC
BASE CASE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
325
325 MAIN
MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON
DESIGN
DESIGN REVIEW
REVIEW SUBMISSION
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 85
10
RENDERING - VIEW FROM MAIN STREET CROSSWALK
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL
* Conceptual rendering provided for design intent. Exact scope and form are subject to determination of feasibility.

RENDERING - VIEW FROM MAIN STREET CROSSWALK
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

RENDERING - VIEW LOOKING WEST
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

RENDERING - VIEW OF SECOND LEVEL TERRACE
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

RENDERING - VIEW FROM GARDEN TO PLAZA
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

RENDERING - VIEW FROM GARDEN TO PLAZA
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

RENDERING - VIEW FROM ABOVE MBTA TO ROOFTOP GARDEN

RENDERING - VIEW FROM ABOVE MBTA TO ROOFTOP GARDEN
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

1.6 SIGNAGE
The Applicant received comments requesting additional details on proposed 3CC BUILDING SIGNAGE ZONE
building and retail signage. Illustrative elevations showing potential signage
locations are shown in Section 1.6. RETAIL SIGNAGE ZONE
       
       


























 











 




 




 









NEW STAIR/ELEVATOR





TO ROOF GARDEN


 




 


MBTA


HEADHOUSE 



(PENDING MBTA


APPROVAL)


 




 


 






 
SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

1.6 SIGNAGE
3CC BUILDING SIGNAGE ZONE
RETAIL SIGNAGE ZONE
       
       
 
 




 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 




 
 


 
 


 
 


 
 

MBTA

HEADHOUSE  

(PENDING MBTA 


APPROVAL)
 
 


 
 


 
 
NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION


1.6 SIGNAGE



























3CC BUILDING SIGNAGE ZONE


RETAIL SIGNAGE ZONE 






PUBLIC RESTROOM SIGNAGE LOCATION

1.6 SIGNAGE
PRELIMINARY PUBLIC AMENITY WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PLAN

PUBLIC GARDEN SIGNAGE
RETAIL
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
RETAIL
DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
PUBLIC GARDEN
ELEVATOR SIGNAGE
RETAIL DIRECTIONAL
SIGNAGE

RETAIL
PUBLIC RESTROOM
SIGNAGE

PUBLIC GARDEN/ PUBLIC GARDEN/

RETAIL DIRECTIONAL TERRACE SIGNAGE
SIGNAGE 
 PUBLIC GARDEN/TERRACE
ACCESSIBILITY SIGNAGE
NORTH PARCEL
WAYFINDING SIGNAGE
GROUND FLOOR PLAN

1.7 ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING
POTENTIAL LIGHTING OPPORTUNITIES
The Applicant received comments requesting additional information on the Project’s proposed architectural lighting
plan. Illustrative architectural lighting plans from multiple perspectives are provided in Section 1.7.
b
c
b
b
c
c
b
c
d
c d
c
d
d
c
b
d d c
c
a a
a. Ample amount of interior light spill from Active Use and Lobby spaces help to energize ground level during dusk and evening hours
b. Soffits uplit from linear lighting integrated into concealed light cove at soffit edge
c. Slanted accent panels uplit from curtainwall system at apertures
d. Lighted handrails provide illumination at occupiable terraces
**Exterior lighting, where provided, will be dimmable

POTENTIAL LIGHTING OPPORTUNITIES
b
b
c
d
b
b
d c
d
c
a
a. Ample amount of interior light spill from Active Use and Lobby spaces help to energize ground level during dusk and evening hours
b. Soffits uplit from linear lighting integrated into concealed light cove at soffit edge
c. Slanted accent panels uplit from curtainwall system at apertures
d. Lighted handrails provide illumination at occupiable terraces
**Exterior lighting, where provided, will be dimmable

PRECEDENT IMAGES

2. LANDSCAPE
4.1
2.1 OPEN SPACE OVERVIEW
325 MAIN STREET (COMMERCIAL BUILDING B)
The streetscape along Main Street in front of the Commercial Building B was very recently
thoughtfully redesigned and renovated by the City of Cambridge and includes street trees,
traditional and sculptural benches, bike parking hitches and other street furniture as documented
in the following pages. Per discussions with the Cambridge Department of Public Works, before
beginning construction, 325 Main Street will remove and protect the street furniture and remove
and replant the existing eight (8) street trees at another appropriate jointly-agreed upon location.
Upon completion of 325 Main Street, the street furniture and existing paving will be restored to
its current condition and eight (8) replacement street trees will be planted in kind on Main Street.
KENDALL PLAZA
The existing Kendall Plaza was most recently renovated in 2012 and primarily serves as a major
circulation element through and around Kendall Square, a connection point between MIT and the
surrounding neighborhood and an access point to the MBTA Red Line Outbound Headhouse.
The plaza is flanked by retail along its east side, retail and the Headhouse on its west side,
the Marriott hotel lobby to the North, and Main Street to the South. In addition to serving as a
public gathering space for farmer’s markets and other community events, Kendall Plaza features KENDALL PLAZA
passive green space as well as moveable seating, promoting enjoyable public interaction and
community engagement. The redevelopment of 325 Main Street, will significantly upgrade the
public experience in Kendall Plaza through a revitalized two-story retail edge along its west side
as well as aesthetic and minor functional upgrades to the existing MBTA Outbound Headhouse.
Additionally, the Project will create a new pedestrian connection from Kendall Plaza to the
Kendall Square Rooftop Garden, facilitating public access and enhancing visual and physical
connections between these two important public spaces and the visual activation of Kendall
Plaza. These improvements will all serve to augment Kendall Plaza’s role as a central hub of
activity, neighborhood connector and transportation access point, further reinforcing Kendall
Plaza as the center of Kendall Square.
MAIN STREET KENDALL PLAZA

DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSION JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 102
2
4.1
2.1 OPEN SPACE OVERVIEW
KENDALL SQUARE ROOFTOP GARDEN
The Applicant received comments on the landscape design and future use of the Kendall Square Rooftop
Garden. As presented at the Joint Board hearings on 10/2/18 12/4/2018 and documented in the previous
325 Main Street Design Review Book submitted on 9/6/18, a substantial terraced and landscaped
connection is being proposed between the Kendall Plaza and the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden. As
discussed in detail in Chapter 7, Environmental Impacts of the Concept Plan Amendment and reproduced
in Chapter 3 of this document, the existing climate conditions on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden
will change with the development of Commercial Building B. Please refer to Chapter 3 for an in-depth
analysis of both existing and future conditions, including shade/sun, and thermal comfort. To address the
future conditions, both the plantings and programming of the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden are being
reconsidered. Large areas will be replanted using a comprehensive plant palette with species appropriate
for a variety of conditions, allowing strategic placement of plants best-suited for full or partial shade, partial
sun, or full sun conditions. Synthetic lawn will also be employed, where appropriate, to encourage and
allow for specific programming opportunities.
In response to comments received, as shown in the following pages, the Applicant and the design team
have identified locations on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden for potential public art. The form and
content of the public art will be further defined as the design develops, but could take the form of a
permanent or rotating installation. To create an even more engaging space and to promote additional
public use of the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden during the warmer summer months, the Applicant
proposes to extend its operating hours (currently from dawn to dusk) until 11:00 PM for the months of June
to September. Additionally, as shown in the figures that follow, extended public use of the Kendall Square
Rooftop Garden will be further encouraged in two ways: (1) augmenting public programming and events
with a variety of proposed activities available at different times of the day/week, such as lawn games and
outdoor yoga classes, and (2) implementing a new lighting plan, allowing for the safe use of the Kendall
Square Rooftop Garden during the extended summer evening hours.
The extended public utility of the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden beyond daylight hours will allow for the
possibility of new evening programming, such as free movie nights, or occasional public or semi-private
celebrations, including opportunities to partner with local organizations (e.g. Hubweek and Cambridge
Science Festival). Additionally, on a trial basis during the peak summer months, the Applicant proposes to
host a pop-up coffee or refreshment cart a couple times per week to further encourage public enjoyment of
the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden. Due to the experimental nature of housing retail uses in this location,
the Applicant will test different times of day, days of week and product offering to determine what is
desirable and viable from both a public and commercial perspective. If the cart proves to be commercially
successful, the Applicant will consider expanding its presence.
A proposed schedule of potential additional programming (in bold) and existing programming is outlined
below:
• Free Fitness Classes – Tuesday evenings, June–September
• Free Gardening Classes – Wednesday afternoons, April–November
• Free Cooking and Tasting Demonstrations – Wednesday evenings in August
• Free Yoga Classes – Thursday mornings, June–September
• Free Movie Nights – Once a month at sundown, July–September
• Pop-up Coffee or Refreshment Cart – Twice per week, June-July
KENDALL
KENDALLSQUARE
SQUARE ROOF
ROOF GARDEN
GARDEN
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter, Chuck Redmon Letter, Joint Board Hearing

04,2019
2019 103
3
2.2 LEVEL 01 STREETSCAPE
PLAN
MARRIOTT
KENDALL SQUARE ROOF GARDEN
5CC 3CC KENDALL PLAZA 1CC
AA
MAIN STREET
PER ZONING SECTION 6.105.1 e.

5% OF SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING
SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE TANDEM
SPACES

25,2019
2019 104
1
4.2
SECTION
SECTION A - STREETSCAPE

04,2019
2019 105
5
2.2
FURNISHINGS
FURNISHINGS
Existing Wood Benches:

6 Total - Remove, protect, and reuse
Existing Black Metal Benches:

Existing Concrete Benches:

EXISTING WOOD BENCHES

Sculptural Bike Hitch:
Metal Bike Hitch:
EXISTING SCULPTURAL BIKE HITCH 22 Existing - Remove, protext, and reuse

25 New to match existing
EXISTING BLACK METAL BENCHES
EXISTING CONCRETE BENCHES EXISTING METAL BIKE HITCH

04,2019
2019 106
6
4.2
FURNISHINGS
FURNISHINGS
Litter and Ash Receptacles:

Remove, protect, and reuse
Soofa Media Center:

Bus Shelter:
EXISTING LITTER RECETACLE EXISTING MEDIA CENTER EXISTING BUS SHELTER

04,2019
2019 107
7
2.2
PAVING
STREETSCAPE - BRICK PAVING
STREETSCAPE - CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PAVING PLAZA - CONCRETE PAVERS
NOTE: DASHED RED LINE REPRESENTS THE LIMIT OF LANDSCAPE WORK FOR 325 MAIN

DESIGN REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSION
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 1088
2.2
PLANTING AND LIGHTING
LIGHTING
Vehicular Street Light:

Pedestrian Street Light:

STREET TREES - MATCH EXISTING SPECIES (ELM) EXISTING VEHICULAR EXISTING PEDESTRAIN
Ulmus americana ‘Valley Forge’ STREET LIGHT - REUSED STREET LIGHT - REUSED

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 1099
2.3
4.3 LEVEL 02 TERRACE
LEVEL 02 ALTERNATIVES
MARRIOTT MARRIOTT MARRIOTT
C C
B B
3CC 3CC 3CC
BASE CASE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 110
10
2.3
SECTION THROUGH KENDALL PLAZA
SECTION B - LEVEL 02 & PLAZA
3CC MARRIOTT 1CC
THIS AREA SUBJECT KENDALL PLAZA

TO MBTA APPROVAL
325 MAIN
DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 111
11
2.3
SECTION THROUGH KENDALL PLAZA
SECTION C - LEVEL 02 & PLAZA
3CC
PUBLIC TERRACE
RETAIL KENDALL PLAZA

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 112
12
2.4
4.4 KENDALL SQUARE ROOF GARDEN
EXISTING CONDITIONS
???

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 113
13
2.4
EXISTING CONDITIONS - SHADE / SUN DIAGRAM

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 114
14
2.4
PROPOSED CONDITIONS - SHADE / SUN DIAGRAM

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 115
15
2.4
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PROGRAM ANALYSIS

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 116
16
2.4
PROPOSED CONDITIONS - PROGRAM ANALYSIS

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 117
17
4.4
MATERIAL QUANTITIES
MATERIAL QUANTITIES COMPARISON
COMPARISION
PL
AN
EXISTING MATERIAL QUANTITIES
TI
N
G
BE
D
G
N
S
VI
PA
17%
25%
PAVING
LAWN
R A ISED PLA NTER 16% RAISED PLANT

PLANTING BED
42%
EX I S TI NG N TS
LA
WN
PROPOSED MATERIAL QUANTITIES
PL
AN
TI
NG
BE
DS
I NG
P AV
26% 29%
PAVING
LAWN
RAISED PLANTER
PLANTING BEDS
16%
29%
T ER
AN
PL
D
I SE
RA
LA
W
N
PRO P O S E D N TS
325 MAIN
DESIGNREVIEW
DESIGN REVIEWSUBMISSION
SUBMISSION JANUARY 04,
JANUARY 7, 2019
2019 118
18
4.4
2.4 KENDALL SQUARE
SQUARE ROOF
ROOF GARDEN
GARDEN
PROPOSED CONDITIONS - LANDSCAPE PLAN
BR
OA
DW
AY
D2 D2
CONNECTOR
MARRIOTT
D1
3CC

325 MAIN
2.4
NORTH SOUTH SECTION
SECTION D1 - NORTH SOUTH
MARRIOTT 3CC
ROOF GARDEN
BROADWAY MAIN STREET

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 120
20
2.4
GARDEN
EAST WEST SECTION
SECTION D2 - EAST WEST
1CC MARRIOTT 3CC
ROOF GARDEN
325 MAIN
2.4
PROPOSED PLANTING PLAN

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 122
22
2.4
PROPOSED PLANTING PALETTE

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 123
23
2.4
PROPOSED PLANTING PALETTE: LATE SPRING - SUMMER
ASTILBE
DIANTHUS ‘BATH’S PINK’
NEPETA RACEMOSA ‘WALKER’S LOW’
RHODODENDRON CATAWBIENSE
POLYGONATUM ODORATUM VAR. PLURIFLORUM
FOTHERGILLA GARDENII
CERCIS CANADENSIS
JAPANESE TREE LILAC (EXISTING)

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 124
24
2.4
PROPOSED PLANTING PALETTE: LATE SUMMER - FALL
ECHINACEA PURPUREA
BUDDLEJA DAVIDII ‘BLACK KNIGHT’
HYDRANGEA MACROPHYLLA
CLETHRA ALNIFOLIA
RUDBECKIA HIRTA
FOTHRGILLA GARDENII
HAMAMELIS X INTERMEDIA ‘ARNOLD’S PROMISE’
CARPINUS CAROLINIANA

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 125
25
2.4
PROPOSED PLANTING PALETTE: WINTER
ILEX X MESERVEAE ‘BLUE PRINCESS’
CORNUS SERICEA
POLYSTICHUM ACROSTICHIODES
RHODODENDRON CATAWBIENSE
LIRIOPE MUSCARI
HAMAMELIS X INTERMEDIA ‘ARNOLD’S PROMISE’

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 126
26
2.4
DAYTIME RENDERING

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 127
27
2.4
NIGHTTIME RENDERING

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 128
28
2.4 KENDALL
4.4 KENDALL SQUARE
SQUARE ROOF GARDEN
BENEFITS OF
BENEFITS OF SYNTHETIC
SYNTHETIC LAWN
LAWN
Benefi ts over n a t u r a l t u r f :
+ R educes w a t e r u se b y u p t o 7 0 %
+ R ecycl eab le
+ D rai ns 10x f a st e r
+ N o cl osure t im e f o r t u r f re c o v e r y af t er event s or rai n
+ R educe ma in t e n a n c e c o st b y 7 5 %
+ D oes not re q u ire p e st ic id e o r h e rb i ci d e
+ N o carbon e m is s io n s d u e t o m o wi ng
+ Easi l y repla c e d a s su b s u r f a c e can b e re-used .
+ Warranti ed
+ Fast usage t im e : o n c e in s t a lle d , p eop l e can use ver y q ui ckl y
325 MAIN
2.4
PROPOSED PROGRAM - LUNCH TIME

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 130
30
2.4
PROPOSED PROGRAM - YOGA

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 131
31
2.4
PROPOSED PROGRAM - MOVIE NIGHT

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 132
32
2.4
PROPOSED PROGRAM - CEREMONY / CELEBRATION
*ROOF GARDEN WILL REMAIN OPEN TO THE

PUBLIC DURING SCHEDULED EVENTS.

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 133
33
2.4
PROPOSED PROGRAM - LARGE EVENT TENT
*ROOF GARDEN WILL REMAIN OPEN TO THE

PUBLIC DURING SCHEDULED EVENTS.

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 134
34
2.4
PROPOSED PROGRAM - POTENTIAL ART LOCATION
LOCATIONS
TEMPORARY INSTALLATIONS
PAINTED MURAL
ROTATING SCULPTURES

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 135
35
2.4 KENDALL
4.4 KENDALL SQUARE
SQUARE ROOF
ROOF GARDEN
GARDEN
FURNITUREPRECEDENTS
FURNITURE PRECEDENTS
MOVEABLE TABLES AND CHAIRS LAWN GAMES MOVEABLE LAWN CHAIRS
ADIRONDACK CHAIRS ADIRONDACK CHAIRS MOVEABLE LAWN CHAIRS
325MAIN
2.4
PAVING
ROOF GARDEN - BRICK PAVING TO MATCH EXISTING
LEVEL 02 TERRACE AND ROOF GARDEN BRIDGE CONNECTION - LEVEL 02 TERRACE AND ROOF GARDEN LEVEL 02 TERRACE AND ROOF GARDEN BRIDGE
CONCRETE PAVERS OVER PEDESTALS BRIDGE CONNECTION CONNECTION

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 137
37
2.4
LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY

DESIGN REVIEW
SUBMISSION JANUARY
JANUARY 7,
04,2019
2019 138
38
2.4 KENDALL
4.4 KENDALL SQUARE
SQUARE ROOF GARDEN
LIGHTINGPRECEDENTS
LIGHTING PRECEDENTS
CATENARY LIGHTS EVENT LIGHT ELECTRICAL OUTLET / CHARGING STATION
CATENARY LIGHTS STAKE MOUNTED UPLIGHTS FLUSH MOUNTED WALL LIGHTS

325 MAIN
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
3.1 PEDESTRIAN WIND ASSESSMENT
Since issuing the pedestrian wind results detailed in the previous 325 Main Street Design Review Book submitted on 9/6/18, the massing of Commercial Building B has been modified as described in Chapter 1.
Although the updated massing is one story taller, it is also narrower and provides additional massing setbacks which tend to intercept wind flows from higher elevations from reaching grade level, which is a positive
feature from a pedestrian comfort perspective. As described in the documentation from RWDI in the pages that follow, it is anticipated that the revised massing will result in similar wind conditions around the Project
Site.
In response to a question on uncomfortable conditions on the north side of Broadway, the following RWDI memos dated August 16, 2018 and January 23, 2019 describe the issues surrounding those conditions,
the ongoing study and evaluation of them, and how they are not affected by the development at 325 Main Street.
3.2 SHADOW STUDY

The Applicant received comments requesting additional information on the shadow impacts to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden. The Shadow studies submitted in the previous 325 Main Street Design Review
Book submitted on 9/6/18 have been expanded with the supplemental presentation and animation file (2018-1102-IDCP-RTC-SHADOW STUDIES.ppsx) which illustrates shadows for the district for the following
full days: Equinox: March 21 & September 21 (EST), Summer Solstice: June 21 (EST), Fall: October 21 (EST) and Winter Solstice: December 21 (EST). These figures summarize the new shadows and the existing
shadows with an enlarged area of the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden. The shadow studies are representative of the revised massing for Commercial Building B illustrated in this 325 Main Street Commercial Building
B Design Review Re-Submission. Overall, for the specific times represented, the change in shadow on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden due to the revised massing is negligible. The East facade reduction allows
more light to enter the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden at the new Kendall Plaza connector location at certain times of the year and allows for improved visual wayfinding to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden from
the Kendall Plaza.
The extended public utility of the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden beyond daylight hours will allow for the possibility of new evening programming, such as free movie nights, or occasional public or semi-private
celebrations, including opportunities to partner with local organizations (e.g. Hubweek and Cambridge Science Festival). Additionally, on a trial basis during the peak summer months, the Applicant proposes to host
a pop-up coffee or refreshment cart a couple times per week to further encourage public enjoyment of the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden. Due to the experimental nature of housing retail uses in this location, the
Applicant will test different times of day, days of week and product offering to determine what is desirable and viable from both a public and commercial perspective. If the cart proves to be commercially successful,
the Applicant will consider expanding its presence.
3.3 THERMAL COMFORT STUDY

In addition to the Shadow Studies: to provide a more complete picture as it relates to human comfort, the Applicant conducted a Thermal Comfort Study using Energy Plus Weather data (EPW) for Boston and
the Universal Thermal Climate Index Method (UTCI). A Thermal Comfort Study is a tool used to help analyze the composite impacts of sun, shadow, humidity and other external climate factors that determine the
perception of comfort at a specific time. For example, the combination of bright sun and high humidity are generally uncomfortable as are high shade and low temperatures. The study shows the impact to the
range of comfort levels on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden based on the proposed building massing. The study also provides better informed determinations on impact to planting and programmatic uses on
the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden as described in Chapter 2, showing the comparison of the existing conditions and proposed conditions created by Commercial Building B. As shown in the following analysis,
during the warm summer months, human comfort can actually be increased through the addition of “Tactical Shade.” During the period of greatest use (June-September), human comfort on the Kendall Square
Rooftop Garden will increase. On an annual basis, there are approximately 20 additional hours of comfort, representing a 4 percent annual increase.

FINAL REPORT PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY

KENDALL SQUARE MASTERPLAN
RWDI #1603158
August 7, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
North Parcel
The predicted wind conditions pertaining to the configurations assessed for the Commercial Building A wind tunnel
test are graphically depicted on a site plan in Figures 1a through 2b located in the “Figures” section of this report.
These conditions and the associated wind speeds are also numerically represented in Table 1, located in the
“Tables” section of this report. The results presented can be summarized as follows:
• Wind speeds at all locations are predicted to meet the criterion used to assess pedestrian wind safety
for both configurations.
KENDALL SQUARE • Wind comfort conditions for the existing configuration are expected to be comfortable for strolling or
MASTERPLAN better during the summer and comfortable for walking or better during the winter; and,
CAMBRIDGE, MA
• Wind comfort conditions are generally expected to remain comfortable for strolling or better during
the summer with the addition of the Residential Building North and South developments except for
PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY localized conditions comfortable for walking at isolated locations. During the winter, wind speeds are
RWDI # 1603158 expected to increase to uncomfortable conditions at the south base of the Residential Building South,
August 7, 2018 on the sidewalk along Broadway Street and on the sidewalk along Galileo Way. If the design team
wishes to improve wind conditions, wind control measures are recommended and described and can
be further discussed with RWDI’s design team.
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
East Parcel
Michael Tilford Kevin Bauman, B.Eng., EIT.
Senior Project Manager – Development Technical Coordinator The predicted wind conditions pertaining to the configurations assessed for the Commercial Building B wind tunnel
kevin.bauman@rwdi.com test are graphically depicted on a site plan in Figures 3a through 4b located in the “Figures” section of this report.
Boston Properties These conditions and the associated wind speeds are also numerically represented in Table 2, located in the
800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900 Albert Brooks, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
“Tables” section of this report. The results presented can be summarized as follows:
Boston, MA 02199-8103 Senior Project Engineer
(617) 236-3329 albert.brooks@rwdi.com
• Wind speeds at all locations are predicted to meet the criterion used to assess pedestrian wind safety
mtilford@bostonproperties.com
Bill Smeaton, P.Eng. for both configurations;
Principal / Senior Project Manager
bill.smeaton@rwdi.com • Wind comfort conditions around the existing 325 Main Street building are expected to be comfortable
for standing and sitting during the summer, with the exception of isolated locations comfortable for
RWDI
strolling and walking. During the winter, the wind conditions are generally expected to be comfortable
600 Southgate Drive,
Guelph, Canada, N1G 4P6 for walking or better with the exception of isolated uncomfortable conditions along Main Street;
T: 519-823-1311 x 2318
• The addition of the proposed Commercial Building B development, is expected to result in wind
conditions similar to the existing site condition. These conditions are considered appropriate; and,
• The Commercial Building A and North and South Residential Buildings to the northwest of the 325
Main Street site are expected to have minimal influence on the wind conditions presented.
This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or
confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon request.
® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America rwdi.com rwdi.com

PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY PEDESTRIAN WIND STUDY

KENDALL SQUARE MASTERPLAN KENDALL SQUARE MASTERPLAN
RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
August 7, 2018 August 7, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES

Commercial Buildng A Wind Tunnel Tests
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 1a: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Existing Configuration – Summer
Figure 1b: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Proposed Configuration – Summer
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................1
Figure 2a: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Existing Configuration – Winter
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2b: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Proposed Configuration – Winter
1.2 Objectives .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Commercial Building B Wind Tunnel Tests
BACKGROUND AND APPROACH .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3a: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Existing Configuration – Summer
Figure 3b: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Proposed Configuration – Summer
2.1 Wind Tunnel Study Model – North Parcel................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Wind Tunnel Study Model – East Parcel ................................................................................................... 2 Figure 4a: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Existing Configuration – Winter
Figure 4b: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions – Proposed Configuration – Winter
2.3 Meteorological Data .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 RWDI Pedestrian Wind Criteria .................................................................................................................. 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF TABLES
Commercial Buildng A Wind Tunnel Tests
3.1 North Parcel ..........................................................................................................................................................9
Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions
Existing Configuration ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Proposed Configuration .............................................................................................................................................. 9
Commercial Building B Wind Tunnel Tests
3.2 East Parcel ...........................................................................................................................................................10
Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions
Existing Configuration ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Proposed Configuration ............................................................................................................................................ 10
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPLICABILITY OF RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Drawings List for Model Construction
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 12
rwdi.com rwdi.com


RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND APPROACH

Due to the size and distance between the Commercial Building A and Commercial Building B developments, two (2)
RWDI was retained to conduct a Pedestrian Wind assessment for the proposed Commercial Building A (145
wind tunnel study models were constructed and tested to provide an accurate representation of the wind
Broadway Street) and Residential Buildings North and South (135 Broadway Street) developments and the
conditions in the area and the impact of the developments.
Commercial Building B (325 Main Street) development as part of the Kendall Square Masterplan in Cambridge, MA.
This report presents the project objectives, background, approach, and provides a discussion of the results from
The scale models of the proposed projects were constructed using the design information and drawings listed in
RWDI’s assessment.
Appendix A. The wind tunnel model included all relevant surrounding buildings and topography within an
approximately 1200 ft radius of the study site. The boundary-layer wind conditions beyond the modelled area were
1.1 Project Description also simulated in RWDI's wind tunnel. The placement of wind measurement locations was based on our experience
and understanding of the pedestrian usage for this site, and reviewed by the project design team. These
The project consists of the construction of;
measurements were recorded for 36 equally incremented wind directions.
• Two residential towers (north tower (170 ft tall) and south tower (350 ft tall)) on the existing garage at
The wind tunnel study tests and models constructed are described and shown as follows;
the 135 Broadway Street site;
• A 250 ft tall Commercial Office / Retail building at the 145 Broadway Street site; and,
• A 250 ft tall Commercial Office / Retail development at the 325 Main Street site.
2.1 Wind Tunnel Study Model – North Parcel
The wind environment around the proposed Commercial Building A development was assessed using a 1:300 scale
1.2 Objectives wind tunnel model of the site and surroundings instrumented with 97 wind speed sensors to measure mean and
gust wind speeds at a full-scale height of approximately 5 ft with the following configurations tested:
The purpose of the study was to assess the wind environment around the project in terms of pedestrian comfort
and safety. This quantitative assessment was based on wind speed measurements on a 1:300 scale model of the A - Existing: The Commercial Building A development including the existing surroundings, (Image
project and its surroundings in a boundary-layer wind tunnel. The assessment focused on critical pedestrian areas 2.1a); and,
including main and secondary entrances and sidewalks along adjacent and nearby streets.
B - Proposed: The Residential Building North and South developments including the Commercial
Building A development and existing surroundings (Image 2.1b).
135 Broadway Street
145 Broadway Street
2.2 Wind Tunnel Study Model – East Parcel
The wind environment around the proposed Commercial Building B development was assessed using a 1:300 scale
wind tunnel model of the site and surroundings instrumented with 89 wind speed sensors to measure mean and
gust wind speeds at a full-scale height of approximately 5 ft with the following configurations tested:
325 Main Street
A - Existing: The existing 325 Main Street building including the existing surroundings (vacant site
at 145 Broadway Street and existing parking structure at 135 Broadway Street),
(Image 2.2a); and,
MAIN STREET B - Proposed: The proposed Commercial Building B development including the existing
surroundings and the Commercial Building A and Residential Building North and
South developments (Image 2.2b).
Image 1: Site Plan – Aerial View of Site and Surroundings (Courtesy of Google™ Earth)
rwdi.com Page 1 rwdi.com Page 2


RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
Image 2.1a: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Existing Configuration Image 2.1b: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Proposed Configuration


RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
Image 2.2a: Wind Tunnel Study Model – Existing Configuration Image 2.2b: Wind Tunnel Study Model –Proposed Configuration


RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
2.3 Meteorological Data 2.4 RWDI Pedestrian Wind Criteria

Wind statistics recorded at Boston Logan International Airport between 1988 and 2018, inclusive, were analyzed for The RWDI pedestrian wind criteria, which has been developed by RWDI through research and consulting practice
the Summer (May through October) and Winter (November through April) seasons. Image 3 graphically depicts the since 1974, are used in the current study. These criteria have been widely accepted by municipal authorities as well
directional distributions of wind frequencies and speeds for the two seasons. Winds from the southwest and west as by the building design and city planning community. They are sometimes subjective and regional differences in
through northwest directions, are predominant in both the summer and winter seasons as indicated by the wind wind climate and thermal conditions as well as variations in age, health, clothing, etc. can affect a person’s
roses. Strong winds of a mean speed greater than 20 mph measured at the airport (at an anemometer height of 30 perception of the wind climate. Therefore, comparisons of wind speeds for the existing and proposed building
ft) occur for 4.8% and 12.6% of the time during the summer and winter seasons, respectively. configurations are the most objective way in assessing local pedestrian wind conditions. In general, the combined
effect of mean and gust speeds on pedestrian comfort can be quantified by a Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM).
Wind statistics were combined with the wind tunnel data to predict the frequency of occurrence of full-scale wind
speeds. The full-scale wind predictions were then compared with the RWDI criteria for pedestrian comfort and
GEM Speed
safety. Comfort Category Description
(mph)
Calm or light breezes desired for outdoor restaurants and seating areas
Sitting <6
where one can read a paper without having it blown away
Gentle breezes suitable for main building entrances, bus stops, and other
Standing <8
places where pedestrians may linger
Moderate winds that would be appropriate for window shopping and

Strolling < 10
strolling along a downtown street, plaza or park
Relatively high speeds that can be tolerated if one’s objective is to walk,

Walking < 12
run or cycle without lingering
Strong winds of this magnitude are considered a nuisance for all

Uncomfortable > 12
pedestrian activities, and wind mitigation is typically recommended
Notes:
(1) GEM speed = max (mean speed, gust speed/1.85);
(2) GEM speeds listed above are based on a seasonal exceedance of 20% of the time between 6:00 and 23:00.
Nightly hours between 0:00 and 5:00 are excluded from the wind analysis for comfort since limited usage of
outdoor spaces is anticipated; and,
(3) Instead of standard four seasons, two periods of summer (May to October) and winter (November to April)
Summer (May – October) Winter (November – April)
are adopted in the wind analysis, because in a moderate climate such as that found in Cambridge, there are
distinct differences in pedestrian outdoor behaviors between these two-time periods.
Wind Speed Probability (%)
(mph) Summer Winter Gust Speed
Safety Criterion Description
Calm 2.5 2.2 (mph)
1-5 7.7 5.8 Excessive gust speeds that can adversely affect a pedestrian's balance
Exceeded > 56
6-10 35.6 27.1 and footing. Wind mitigation is typically required.
11-15 34.5 31.6

Notes:
16-20 14.9 20.8 (1) Based on an annual exceedance of 9 hours or 0.1% of the time for 24 hours a day; and,
>20 4.8 12.6 (2) Only gust speeds need to be considered in the wind safety criterion. These are usually rare events, but
deserve special attention in city planning and building design due to their potential safety impact on
pedestrians.
Image 3: Directional Distribution of Winds Approaching Boston Logan International Airport From
1988 to 2018


RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.2 East Parcel

The predicted wind comfort conditions pertaining to the configurations assessed are graphically depicted on a site
Wind conditions comfortable for walking or strolling are appropriate for sidewalks and walkways as pedestrians will
plan in Figures 3a through 3b located in the “Figures” section of this report. These conditions and the associated
be active and less likely to remain in one area for prolonged periods of time. Lower wind speeds conducive to
wind speeds are also numerically represented in Table 2, located in the “Tables” section of this report.
standing or sitting are preferred at locations where pedestrians are apt to linger and passive activities are desired
such as main entrances, bus stops parks, outdoor plazas etc. Wind conditions that meet the safety criterion are predicted for both configurations assessed.
The following is a detailed discussion of the suitability of the predicted wind comfort conditions for the anticipated
pedestrian use of each area of interest.
Existing Configuration
For the existing configuration, the wind conditions surrounding the existing 325 Main Street site are generally
3.1 North Parcel expected to be comfortable for standing and sitting during the summer, with the exception of isolated locations to
the east along Main Street comfortable for strolling (Locations 11 - 14, 16, 17, and 27 in Figure 3a) and one location
The predicted wind comfort conditions pertaining to the configurations assessed are graphically depicted on a site
comfortable for walking (Location 25 in Figure 3a). building
plan in Figures 1a through 2b located in the “Figures” section of this report. These conditions and the associated
wind speeds are also numerically represented in Table 1, located in the “Tables” section of this report. The wind conditions on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden on the parking garage to the north of 325 Main Street
building, are expected to be comfortable for standing and sitting during the summer (Locations 81 to 86, 88 and 89
Wind conditions that meet the safety criterion are predicted for both configurations assessed.
in Figure 3a).
Existing Configuration During the winter, the wind conditions are generally expected to be comfortable for walking or better with the
exception of uncomfortable conditions expected along Main Street (Location 25 in Figure 4a).
For the existing configuration, the wind conditions are expected to be comfortable for strolling or better during the
summer (Figure 1a). During the winter, wind speeds are expected to increase throughout the site to conditions Wind conditions on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden on the parking garage to the north of 325 Main Street
comfortable for walking or better, primarily near the southwest corner of Commercial Building A (Figure 2a). building are expected to be comfortable for strolling or better during the winter (Locations 81 through 89 in Figure
4a).
Proposed Configuration
With the addition of the North and South Residential buildings, conditions are generally expected to remain
comfortable for strolling or better during the summer, with the exception of localized wind accelerations that are The addition of the proposed Commercial Building B development, is expected to result in wind conditions similar
expected to result in walking conditions at isolated locations throughout the site (Locations 2, 12 and 61 in Figure to the existing site condition with conditions generally comfortable for standing and sitting and isolated strolling
1b). During the winter however, the addition of the North and South Residential buildings are expected to increase and walking conditions throughput the site for both the summer and winter (Figures 3b and 4b). These conditions
wind speeds at the base of the south tower (Location 61 in Figure 2b), on the sidewalk along Broadway Street are considered appropriate.
(Locations 2 and 59 in Figure 2b) and west of the development on the sidewalk (Locations 12 and 37 in Figure 2b).
If improved conditions are desired, the design team should consider wind control measures such as; The wind speeds are however expected to increase slightly on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden on the parking
garage to the north of Commercial Building B.
• Incorporate coniferous landscaping into the landscaping design of Broadway Park at the base of the 135
Broadway Street south tower. Coniferous landscaping with dense foliage tends to perform better, The Commercial Building A and North and South Residential buildings to the northwest of the Commercial building
particularly during the winter than decisions tree and shrub species; and/or, B development are expected to have minimal influence on the wind conditions presented.
• Include trellis features in Broadway Park at the base of the 135 Broadway Street south tower to provide
overhead protection from potential down-washing winds.
It should be noted that the wind tunnel study for the existing configuration (results presented in Figures 1a and
2a), did not include street tree landscaping. As a result, the wind conditions shown provide a more conservative
estimate of the wind speeds comparatively to the results presented in Figures 1b and 2b.


RWDI #1603158 RWDI #1603158
APPLICABILITY OF RESULTS REFERENCES

The wind conditions presented in this report pertain to the proposed 135 & 145 Broadway Street developments and 1. ASCE Task Committee on Outdoor Human Comfort (2004). Outdoor Human Comfort and Its Assessment, 68
the 325 Main Street development as part of the Kendall Square Masterplan. The constructed wind tunnel models pages, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
have been created in accordance with the architectural design drawings listed in Appendix A. Should there be any
design changes that deviate from this list of drawings, the wind condition predictions presented may change. 2. Williams, C.J., Hunter, M.A. and Waechter, W.F. (1990). "Criteria for Assessing the Pedestrian Wind
Therefore, if changes in the design are made, it is recommended that RWDI be contacted and requested to review Environment," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.36, pp.811-815.
their potential effects on wind conditions.
3. Williams, C.J., Soligo M.J. and Cote, J. (1992). "A Discussion of the Components for a Comprehensive Pedestrian
Level Comfort Criteria," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.41-44, pp.2389-2390.
4. Soligo, M.J., Irwin, P.A., and Williams, C.J. (1993). "Pedestrian Comfort Including Wind and Thermal Effects," Third
Asia-Pacific Symposium on Wind Engineering, Hong Kong.
5. Soligo, M.J., Irwin, P.A., Williams, C.J. and Schuyler, G.D. (1998). "A Comprehensive Assessment of Pedestrian
Comfort Including Thermal Effects," Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.77&78, pp.753-
766.
6. Williams, C.J., Wu, H., Waechter, W.F. and Baker, H.A. (1999). "Experiences with Remedial Solutions to Control
Pedestrian Wind Problems," Tenth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark.
7. Lawson, T.V. (1973). "Wind Environment of Buildings: A Logical Approach to the Establishment of Criteria",
Report No. TVL 7321, Department of Aeronautic Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
8. Durgin, F. H. (1997). "Pedestrian Level Wind Criteria Using the Equivalent average", Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 66, pp. 215-226.
9. Wu, H. and Kriksic, F. (2012). “Designing for Pedestrian Comfort in Response to Local Climate”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol.104-106, pp.397-407.
10. Wu, H., Williams, C.J., Baker, H.A. and Waechter, W.F. (2004), “Knowledge-based Desk-Top Analysis of Pedestrian
Wind Conditions”, ASCE Structure Congress 2004, Nashville, Tennessee.
11. Williams, C.J., Wu, H., Waechter, W.F. and Baker, H.A. (1999). "Experiences with Remedial Solutions to Control
Pedestrian Wind Problems," Tenth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark.

ET
TRE
86
T
ST REE
NS
NEY
BIN 85
RSO
LKE
49 83
FU
45
87
47
40 41
44 46 48 50 88
82
14CC 89
51
81
42
17CC 80
43
52
39 79 91 90
92
93
33 32
31 53 78
94
34 12CC
38
36
95
30 54
77
35 96
37 29
EXISTING
15CC 135 BROADWAY 55
28 97
76
27
56 75 73
74 71 70
13 17 72
15
12 26 62 63 64
14 16 57 61
18
69
11 COMMERCIAL 25 58
10 BUILDING A 19 24
BUILDING REMOVED FOR 65

10CC
9 CLARITY OF GRADE LEVEL 60
20 68
SENSORS 23
8 1 22
5 4
7 67
21 66
6 3 2 59
BROADWAY STREET
LEGEND:
COMFORT CATEGORIES: SENSOR LOCATION:
Sitting Grade Level
Standing LANDSCAPING:
Strolling
Trees
Walking
Screen
Uncomfortable
0 60 120ft
True North
Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Drawn by: ARM Figure: 1a
Summer (May to October, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=120'
Kendall Square Master Plan - North Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Aug. 7, 2018

ET
EE
TRE
STR
86 86
ET T
S TRE ST REE
NS
NEY NEY
SON
BIN 85
BIN 85
RSO
84
E R
LKE
LK
49 83 49 83
FU
FU
45 45
87 87
47 47
40 41 40 41
44 46 48 50 88 44 46 50 88
48
82 82
RESIDENTIAL 14CC 89 14CC 89

BUILDING NORTH
51 51
42 81 81
42
17CC 17CC 80
43 43
52 80 52
39 91 90 39 79 91 90
92 92
79
93 93
33 32 78 33 32
31
135
31 53 78
BROADWAY 53 94 94
34 34
38 12CC 38 12CC
36 36
30 95 95
54 30 54
77
77
35 96 35
37 29 96
37 29
EXISTING
15CC 55 15CC 135 BROADWAY 55
28 97 28 97
Y
WA
76 76
27 RESIDENTIAL 27
ILEO
BUILDING
SOUTH
GAL
13 56 75 73 56
74 71 70 75 74 73 71
17 70
15 26 13 17
72 72
12 14 16 18 15
61 62 63 64 12 26 62 63 64
57 14 16 57 61
18
11 COMMERCIAL 69 69
BUILDING A 25 58 11 COMMERCIAL 25 58
19
10 24
10 BUILDING A 19 24
BUILDING REMOVED FOR
CLARITY OF GRADE LEVEL 65 BUILDING REMOVED FOR 65
9
10CC 10CC
SENSORS 9 CLARITY OF GRADE LEVEL 60
1 20 23 60 68 20 68
SENSORS 23
8 22 8 1 22
5 4
7 67 5 4
3 21 7 67
6 2 66 21 66
59 6 3 2 59
BROADWAY STREET BROADWAY STREET
LEGEND: LEGEND:
COMFORT CATEGORIES: SENSOR LOCATION: COMFORT CATEGORIES: SENSOR LOCATION:
Sitting Grade Level Sitting Grade Level
Standing LANDSCAPING: Standing LANDSCAPING:
Strolling Strolling
Trees Trees
Walking Walking
Screen
Uncomfortable Uncomfortable
AMES STREET
0 60 120ft 0 60 120ft
S
AME
True North 88 True North
Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Drawn by: ARM Figure: 1b Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Drawn by: ARM Figure: 2a
Proposed Configuration Existing Configuration
Summer (May to October, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=120' Winter (November to April, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=120'
Kendall Square Master Plan - North Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Aug. 7, 2018 Kendall Square Master Plan - North Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Aug. 7, 2018

T EE
STR
86
ET
S TRE
NEY
SON
BIN 85
84
E R
LK
49 83
FU
45
87
47
40 41
44 46 48 50 88
82
RESIDENTIAL 14CC 89
BUILDING NORTH
51
42 81
17CC
43
52 80
39 91 90
92
79
93
33 32 78
31
135
BROADWAY 53 94
34
38 12CC
36
30 95
54
77
35 96
37 29
15CC 55
28 97
Y
WA
76
27 RESIDENTIAL
ILEO
BUILDING
SOUTH
GAL
13 56 75 73
74 71 70
15 17 26
72
12 14 16 18
57 61 62 63 64
11 COMMERCIAL 69
BUILDING A 25 58
19
10 24
BUILDING REMOVED FOR
CLARITY OF GRADE LEVEL 65
9
10CC
SENSORS 1 20 60 68
23
8 22
5 4
7 67
6 3 21
2 59 66
BROADWAY STREET
LEGEND:
Sitting Grade Level
Standing LANDSCAPING:
Strolling
Trees
Walking
Uncomfortable
AMES STREET
0 60 120ft
ES
AM
True North 88
Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions Drawn by: ARM Figure: 2b
Winter (November to April, 6:00 to 23:00) Approx. Scale: 1"=120'
Kendall Square Master Plan - North Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Aug. 7, 2018

64
69
65
66 70
63 67
68
62
58
61 71 BR 73
59
OA
60 DW
57 AY
STR
72
EET
55 75
EET
56
89
STR
74
88
81
ES
53 54
AM
76 78
88 AMES
EET
87
83 86
STR
77
IRD
52
51 82 84 85 80
TH
44 50
49 48 79
46 47 1 5
45 4
43
2
6 12
13
42
3
325 MAIN 7
EXISTING BUILDING
38 40 41 11
39 33 28 20 8 14
31 29 26 24 22 9 10
16
MAIN STREET
37 36 35 34 32 30
DOCK STREET
27 25 23 21 19 18 17 15
LEGEND:
AMES STREET

Sitting Grade Level
Standing
Podium Level
Strolling
LANDSCAPING:
Walking
Trees
Uncomfortable
0 75 150ft
True North
Kendall Square Master Plan - East Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Aug. 7, 2018

64
69
65
66 70
63 67
68
62
58
61 71 BR 73
59
OA
60 DW
57 AY
STR
72
EET
55 75
EET
56
89
STR
74
88
81
ES
53 54
AM
76 78
88 AMES
EET
87
83 86
STR
77
IRD
52
51 82 84 85 80
TH
44 50
49 48 79
46 47 1 5
45 4
43
COMMERCIAL 2
BUILDING B 6 12
13
42
3
7
38 40 41 11
39 33 28 20 8 14
31 29 26 24 22 9 10
16
MAIN STREET
37 36 35 34 32 30
DOCK STREET
27 25 23 21 19 18 17 15
LEGEND:
AMES STREET

Sitting Grade Level
Standing
Podium Level
Strolling
LANDSCAPING:
Walking
Trees
Uncomfortable
0 75 150ft
True North

64
69
65
66 70
63 67
68
62
58
61 71 BR 73
59
OA
60 DW
57 AY
STR
72
EET
55 75
EET
56
89
STR
74
88
81
ES
53 54
AM
76 78
88 AMES
EET
87
83 86
STR
77
IRD
52
51 82 84 85 80
TH
44 50
49 48 79
46 47 1 5
45 4
43
2
6 12
13
42
3
325 MAIN 7
EXISTING BUILDING
38 40 41 11
39 33 28 20 8 14
31 29 26 24 22 9 10
16
MAIN STREET
37 36 35 34 32 30
DOCK STREET
27 25 23 21 19 18 17 15
LEGEND:
AMES STREET

Sitting Grade Level
Standing
Podium Level
Strolling
LANDSCAPING:
Walking
Trees
Uncomfortable
0 75 150ft
True North

64
69
65
66 70
63 67
68
62
58
61 71 BR 73
59
OA
60 DW
57 AY
STR
72
EET
55 75
EET
56
89
STR
74
88
81
ES
53 54
AM
76 78
88 AMES
EET
87
83 86
STR
77
IRD
52
51 82 84 85 80
TH
44 50
49 48 79
46 47 1 5
45 4
43
COMMERCIAL 2
BUILDING B 6 12
13
42
3
7
38 40 41 11
39 33 28 20 8 14
31 29 26 24 22 9 10
16
MAIN STREET
37 36 35 34 32 30
DOCK STREET
27 25 23 21 19 18 17 15
LEGEND:
AMES STREET

Sitting Grade Level
Standing
Podium Level
Strolling
LANDSCAPING:
Walking
Trees
Uncomfortable
0 75 150ft
True North

64
69
65
66 70
63 67
68
62
58
61 71 BR 73
59
OA
60 DW
57 AY
STR
72
EET
55 75
EET
56
89
STR
74
88
81
ES
53 54
AM
76 78
88 AMES
EET
87
83 86
STR
77
IRD
52
51 82 84 85 80
TH
44 50
49 48 79
46 47 1 5
45 4
43
COMMERCIAL 2
BUILDING B 6 12
13
42
3
7
38 40 41 11
39 33 28 20 8 14
31 29 26 24 22 9 10
16
MAIN STREET
37 36 35 34 32 30
DOCK STREET
27 25 23 21 19 18 17 15
AMES STREET
LEGEND:
COMFORT CATEGORY CHANGE: SENSOR LOCATION:
Wind Comfort Reduction - Two Levels or Greater Grade Level
Wind Comfort Reduction - One Level
Podium Level
No Comfort Category Change
LANDSCAPING:
Wind Comfort Improvement - One Level
Trees
Wind Comfort Improvement - Two Levels or Greater 0 75 150ft
True North
Pedestrian Wind Conditions - Category Change Drawn by: ARM Figure: 3
Existing to Proposed
Kendall Square Master Plan - East Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Dec. 3, 2018

64
69
65
66 70
63 67
68
62
58
61 71 BR 73
59
OA
60 DW
57 AY
STR
72
EET
55 75
EET
56
89
STR
74
88
81
ES
53 54
AM
76 78
88 AMES
EET
87
83 86
STR
77
IRD
52
51 82 84 85 80
TH
44 50
49 48 79
46 47 1 5
45 4
43
COMMERCIAL 2
BUILDING B 6 12
13
42
3
7
38 40 41 11
39 33 28 20 8 14
31 29 26 24 22 9 10
16
MAIN STREET
37 36 35 34 32 30
DOCK STREET
27 25 23 21 19 18 17 15
AMES STREET
LEGEND:
COMFORT CATEGORY CHANGE: SENSOR LOCATION:
Wind Comfort Reduction - Two Levels or Greater Grade Level
Wind Comfort Reduction - One Level
Podium Level
No Comfort Category Change
LANDSCAPING:
Wind Comfort Improvement - One Level
Trees
Wind Comfort Improvement - Two Levels or Greater 0 75 150ft
True North
Pedestrian Wind Conditions - Category Change Drawn by: ARM Figure: 4
Existing to Proposed
Kendall Square Master Plan - East Parcel - Cambridge, MA Project #1603158 Date Revised: Dec. 3, 2018

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building A)
Wind Comfort Wind Safety

Summer Winter Annual
Location Configuration
Speed Speed Speed
Rating Rating Rating
(mph) (mph) (mph)
1 Existing 9 Strolling 9 Strolling 43 Pass
Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 46 Pass
2 Existing 10 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass

Proposed 11 Walking 13 Uncomfortable 44 Pass

4 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass

Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 29 Pass
5 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 9 Strolling 35 Pass
6 Existing 8 Standing 12 Walking 46 Pass


8 Existing 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 40 Pass





Proposed 12 Walking 15 Uncomfortable 48 Pass


15 Existing 4 Sitting 6 Sitting 21 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 8 Standing 35 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass

rwdi.com Page 1 of 6

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building A) Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building A)
Wind Comfort Wind Safety Wind Comfort Wind Safety

Summer Winter Annual Summer Winter Annual
Location Configuration Location Configuration
Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
(mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph) (mph)
18 Existing 10 Strolling 11 Walking 45 Pass 35 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass
Proposed 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 37 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass
19 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass 36 Existing 8 Standing 11 Walking 42 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 40 Pass
20 Existing 10 Strolling 12 Walking 48 Pass 37 Existing 10 Strolling 12 Walking 51 Pass

Proposed 10 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass Proposed 10 Strolling 13 Uncomfortable 50 Pass
21 Existing 10 Strolling 12 Walking 43 Pass 38 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 40 Pass

Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 45 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 42 Pass
22 Existing 9 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass 39 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 40 Pass

23 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass 40 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 11 Walking 40 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 9 Strolling 40 Pass
24 Existing 7 Standing 7 Standing 29 Pass 41 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass

25 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 33 Pass 42 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 25 Pass

26 Existing 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 40 Pass 43 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass

Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 31 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 8 Standing 33 Pass
27 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 25 Pass 44 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass

Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 31 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 40 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 8 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 45 Pass
29 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass 46 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 24 Pass



Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 26 Pass

33 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 39 Pass 50 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 33 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass
34 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass 51 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 38 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 35 Pass
rwdi.com Page 2 of 6 rwdi.com Page 3 of 6

Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building A) Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building A)

Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 26 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass
53 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass 70 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 35 Pass


56 Existing 6 Sitting 8 Standing 35 Pass 73 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass

Proposed 9 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass

Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 44 Pass Proposed 9 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass

Proposed 10 Strolling 11 Walking 48 Pass Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 41 Pass

Proposed 10 Strolling 13 Uncomfortable 45 Pass Proposed 9 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass
60 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 33 Pass 77 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 31 Pass

61 Existing 8 Standing 11 Walking 45 Pass 78 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass

Proposed 11 Walking 14 Uncomfortable 47 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 40 Pass



Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 42 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 42 Pass
66 Existing 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 41 Pass 83 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass

67 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 38 Pass 84 Existing - - - - - -



Table 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building A) Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building B)

Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 36 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 21 Pass
87 Existing 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 21 Pass 2 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass

Proposed 5 Sitting 5 Sitting 22 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 26 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 27 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 29 Pass
89 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 30 Pass 4 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass






Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 31 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass
95 Existing 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 32 Pass 10 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass
96 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass 11 Existing 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 42 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass Proposed 10 Strolling 11 Walking 43 Pass
97 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 35 Pass 12 Existing 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 43 Pass

Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass Proposed 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 45 Pass

Seasons Comfort Speed (mph) Safety Speed (mph) Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 47 Pass
Summer November - April (20% Seasonal Exceedance) (> 0.1% Annual Exceedance)
Winter May - October ≤6 Sitting ≤ 56 Pass 14 Existing 10 Strolling 12 Walking 44 Pass
Annual January - December 7-8 Standing > 56 Exceeded Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 43 Pass
Hours 9 - 10 Strolling
Comfort 6:00 - 23:00 11 - 12 Walking
Safety 0:00 - 23:00 > 12 Uncomfortable
Configurations
Existing Proposed 11 Walking 12 Walking 48 Pass
Existing surrounds with the Commercial Building A development
Proposed 17 Existing 10 Strolling 12 Walking 45 Pass
Existing surrounds with the North and South Residential Buildings & Commercial Building A development Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 45 Pass

Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building B) Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building B)







25 Existing 11 Walking 14 Uncomfortable 54 Pass 42 Existing 8 Standing 9 Strolling 35 Pass

Proposed 12 Walking 14 Uncomfortable 55 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass
26 Existing 7 Standing 8 Standing 32 Pass 43 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 28 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 24 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 7 Standing 29 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 10 Strolling 43 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 6 Sitting 27 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 8 Standing 9 Strolling 35 Pass







Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building B) Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building B)

53 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 29 Pass 70 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 32 Pass



56 Existing 8 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass 73 Existing 8 Standing 12 Walking 43 Pass

57 Existing 8 Standing 10 Strolling 37 Pass 74 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 32 Pass

Proposed 8 Standing 11 Walking 39 Pass Proposed 5 Sitting 7 Standing 34 Pass
58 Existing 8 Standing 11 Walking 42 Pass 75 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 34 Pass

Proposed 10 Strolling 12 Walking 45 Pass Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 35 Pass

60 Existing 9 Strolling 10 Strolling 42 Pass 77 Existing 6 Sitting 8 Standing 33 Pass

Proposed 9 Strolling 11 Walking 42 Pass Proposed 7 Standing 8 Standing 34 Pass


63 Existing 6 Sitting 7 Standing 31 Pass 80 Existing 9 Strolling 11 Walking 45 Pass

Proposed 6 Sitting 7 Standing 30 Pass Proposed 9 Strolling 12 Walking 43 Pass






Table 2: Pedestrian Wind Comfort and Safety Conditions (Commercial Building B)
Wind Comfort Wind Safety

Summer Winter Annual
Location Configuration
Speed Speed Speed The drawings and information listed below were received from the project design team and were used to
Rating Rating Rating
(mph) (mph) (mph) construct the scale model of the proposed Kendall Square Masterplan. Should there be any design changes that
deviate from this list of drawings, the results may change. Therefore, if changes in the design are made, it is
recommended that RWDI be contacted and requested to review their potential effects on wind conditions.
Date Received
File Name File Type
88 Existing 5 Sitting 6 Sitting 22 Pass (dd/mm/yyyy)
Proposed 4 Sitting 5 Sitting 20 Pass
2016-1018-WINDSTUDY MODEL-2015.skp Sketchup 16/10/2016
Proposed 8 Standing 8 Standing 37 Pass PCA_145 Broadway.rvt Revit 12/23/2016
180522_325 Main_Massing.3dm Rhinoceros 22/05/2018

Seasons Months Comfort Speed (mph) Safety Speed (mph)
Summer November - April (20% Seasonal Exceedance) (> 0.1% Annual Exceedance) 2018-0704-massing model.skp Sketchup 07/06/2018
Winter May - October ≤6 Sitting ≤ 56 Pass
Annual January - December 7-8 Standing > 56 Exceeded
Hours 9 - 10 Strolling
Comfort 6:00 - 23:00 11 - 12 Walking
Safety 0:00 - 23:00 > 12 Uncomfortable
Configurations
Existing
Existing surrounds without the 135 Broadway Street and Commercial Building A developments
Proposed
Existing surrounds with North and South Residential Buildings, Commercial Building A and Building B developments
rwdi.com Page 6 of 6 rwdi.com Page A1

600 Southgate Drive Tel: +1.519.823.1311
Guelph, ON N1G 4P6 Fax: +1.519.823.1316
Canada
August 16, 2018 As can be seen in Image 1, the addition of the 135 Broadway Street development is expected to alter the wind
conditions at various locations from being comfortable for walking (yellow) to uncomfortable (orange) (Locations 2,
Michael Tilford 12, 37, 59, and 61 in Image 1). Although the overall comfort category at these locations changes, it is important to
Senior Project Manager – Development note that the increase in wind speeds associated with these comfort category changes are relatively marginal above
Boston Properties the walking comfort category threshold of 12 mph. Table 1 below provides a summary of the wind speeds, comfort
800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900
ratings and wind speed changes for the winter season of the two configurations.
Boston, MA 02199-8103
Table 1: Summary of Wind Speeds, Comfort Ratings and Wind Speed Changes – Winter Season
Re: Pedestrian Wind Assessment
Kendall Square Masterplan CONFIGURATION
RWDI Project #1603158 Speed
Existing Proposed
Change
Dear Michael, Location Speed Speed (mph)
Rating Rating
(mph) (mph)
RWDI was retained to conduct a Pedestrian Wind assessment for the proposed Commercial Building A (145
Broadway Street), North and South Residential Towers (135 Broadway Street) and the Commercial Building B (325
2 11 Walking 13 Uncomfortable +2
Main Street) developments as part of the Kendall Square Masterplan in Cambridge, MA. This was achieved through 12 12 Walking 15 Uncomfortable +3
wind tunnel testing of two 1:300 scale models to represent these developments. One wind tunnel study model
focused on the North Parcel (site around the Commercial Building A and North and South Residential Buildings
developments), while the other model focused on the East Parcel (site around the Commercial Building B
development). RWDI’s assessment focused on critical pedestrian areas including main and secondary entrances and 61 11 Walking 14 Uncomfortable +3
sidewalks along adjacent and nearby streets. The results of RWDI’s assessment of the pedestrian wind conditions Configurations:
were subsequently summarized and discussed in a report dated August 7, 2018. Existing = Existing surrounds with the Commercial Building A development
Proposed = Existing surrounds with the North and South Residential Buildings & Commercial Building A development
The following document is in response to various winds conditions that are expected to be uncomfortable,
particularly during the winter season. Image 1, shows the wind conditions with and without the addition of the These uncomfortable conditions presented should be interpreted as strictly pedestrian “comfort” conditions, which
North and South Residential towers for the winter season. are sometimes subjective and regional differences in wind climate and thermal conditions as well as variations in
age, health, clothing, etc. can affect a person’s perception of the wind climate. With regards to pedestrian “safety”,
however, the predicted wind conditions around the project site are not expected to exceed RWDI’s pedestrian wind
safety criterion, which is used to assess the potential for excessive gust speeds to occur and adversely affect a
pedestrian's balance / footing or possibly lead to unsafe conditions. For situations where this criterion may be
exceeded, wind mitigation is typically required and recommended.
In general, the wind conditions predicted around the 135 & 145 Broadway Street development are also very
comparable to similar size developments in this wind and urban environment. In cities as developed as Cambridge,
conditions during the summer are typically comfortable for walking, strolling or better on surrounding sidewalks,
while during the winter, wind conditions which may be perceived as uncomfortable by pedestrians or are
comfortable for walking are common. It is understood that during the winter, pedestrians are less likely to linger for
extended periods of time outdoors and elevated wind conditions are often considered acceptable.
The uncomfortable conditions at Locations 2, 59, and 61 in Image 1 that are anticipated with the addition of the
Image 1: Pedestrian Wind Comfort Conditions During the Winter Season Without the Proposed North and South Residential
Towers at 135 Broadway Street (Left) and with the Towers (Right) North and South Residential Towers are the result of winds from the easterly directions intercepting the façade of
the South Residential Tower at higher elevations and being redirected downwards towards grade level where it
accelerates at building corners in the vicinity (see example flows (blue arrows) in Image 2). These conditions
Project #1603158 Page 2

This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information
that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately.
rwdi.com
® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America.

(particularly those at Location 59) are also the result of winds from the westerly directions acting on the façade of Including additional street landscaping with dense overhead foliage would help alleviate these increased wind
the South Tower in a similar manner (see example flows (green arrows) in Image 2). speeds. Specifications for trees considered for planting should be as follows;
• Trees should be a minimum of 15 ft tall with approximately 2/3 of the tree as foliage and 1/3 as trunk;
• Tree foliage should protrude a diameter of approximately 10 ft to provide ample overhead protection;
• Tree foliage should be relatively dense. Trees that have a higher porosity will provide less benefit in
reducing the energy from oncoming winds; and,
• Tree types such as marcescent or evergreen should be considered which are able to retain their foliage all
year-round and provide annual protection from winds. These species, particularly evergreens, are also
known to have denser foliage.
Location 61
The species of any selected trees for wind control is up to the discretion of the landscape architect as well as the
Location 2 project design team. The tree type that is selected may need to be capable of withstanding frequent winds and
Location 59
correctly planted, accounting for future tree growth.
Image 2: Depiction of Increased Wind Speeds in Parkette and Along Broadway Street (Locations 2, 59, and 61)
In the event of additional changes to the design, construction or adding of surroundings in the future, RWDI could
Including features that provide overhead protection, such as a canopy around the southeast corner of the provide an assessment of their impact on the pedestrian wind conditions presented in the report dated August 7,
Residential Tower, trellis features in the parkette, or additional landscaping with dense overhead foliage are all 2018 as well as content of this memo. It is the responsibility of others to contact RWDI to initiate this process. We
methods for improving these wind effects. trust this satisfies your current requirements. Should you have any questions or require additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
The uncomfortable conditions anticipated at Locations 12 and 37 (identified in Image 1) are the result of winds
Yours truly,
from the westerly directions. Without the massing of the South Tower (left figure in Image 3 below), westerly winds
are able to flow more freely around the Commercial Building A massing. With the massing of the South Tower Kevin Bauman, B.Eng., EIT.
added however (right Figure in Image 3), winds are less likely to flow around Commercial Building A as the massing Technical Coordinator
of the South Tower creates a region of positive pressure to the oncoming westerly winds, forcing winds to take a
Albert Brooks, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
path of lesser resistance (ie. grade level along Galileo Galilei Way).
Senior Project Engineer
Bill Smeaton, P.Eng.

Location 12
Location 12
Location 37 Location 37
Image 3 : Depiction of Increased Wind Speeds along Galileo Galilei Way (Locations 12, and 37)
Project #1603158 Page 3 Project #1603158 Page 4

Guelph, ON N1G 4P6 Fax: +1.519.823.1316
Canada
December 27, 2018
Melissa Schrock
Vice President, Development
Boston, MA 02199-8103
Re: Pedestrian Wind Assessment

325 Main Street
RWDI Project #1603158
Dear Melissa,
RWDI was retained to conduct a Pedestrian Wind assessment for the proposed 325 Main Street development in
Cambridge, MA. This was achieved through wind tunnel testing of a 1:300 scale model of the development and
Image 2: Rendering Showing 325 Main Street Massing Tested for Wind Study (Left) and the Updated 325 Main Street
surrounding area. RWDI’s assessment focused on critical pedestrian areas including main and secondary entrances
Massing (Right) – Views from North
and sidewalks along adjacent and nearby streets. The results of RWDI’s assessment of the pedestrian wind
conditions were subsequently summarized and discussed in a report dated August 7, 2018. As evident in Images 1 and 2, the updated massing sits on a similar size footprint as the massing tested for the
wind study. Although the updated massing is multiple stories taller, it is also somewhat narrower and provides
Since issuing these results, RWDI understands that the massing of the 325 Main Street development has been
additional massing setbacks which tend to intercept wind flows at higher elevations from reaching grade level,
updated. The following document provides commentary with regards to the effect of these massing changes on the
which is a positive feature.
predicted wind conditions around the project site.
It is RWDI’s opinion that the updated 325 Main Street massing is likely to result in similar wind conditions around
Renderings depicting the massing tested for the wind study and the updated massing are shown in Images 1 and 2.
the project site with some relatively localized variations to the predicted wind conditions presented in our report
dated August 7, 2018. If the design team wishes to quantify these changes precisely, additional wind tunnel testing
can be undertaken.
Our opinion as stated herein is based on the results from our wind tunnel tests and our experience with similar
buildings in the Cambridge area. We trust this satisfies your current requirements. Should you have any questions
or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours truly,
Kevin Bauman, B.Eng., EIT. Bill Smeaton, P.Eng.

Technical Coordinator Principal / Senior Project Manager
Image 1: Rendering Showing 325 Main Street Massing Tested for Wind Study (Left) and the Updated 325 Main Street
Massing (Right) – Views from South
Project #1603158 Page 2
rwdi.com

Guelph, ON N1G 4P6 Fax: +1.519.823.1316
Canada
January 23, 2019
Melissa Schrock
Vice President, Development
Boston, MA 02199-8103
Re: Response to City of Cambridge Questions

325 Main Street
RWDI Project #1603158
Dear Melissa,
RWDI has recently conducted pedestrian wind assessments for 135/145 Broadway sites as well as 325 Main Street.
Note that our full report was submitted on August 7, 2018. Subsequent to this, RWDI issued a separate memo
addressing specific locations on the North Parcel (dated August 16, 2018 and included herein).
RWDI was then requested to review several changes to the massing of the proposed building at 325 Main. This was
provided in RWDI’s letter dated December 27, 2018 in which we concluded that wind conditions due to the revised
massing would remain similar to those included in our report. This letter is included as an attachment herein.
We understand at this point that a question has been raised with respect to five locations north of Broadway that
are currently classified as Uncomfortable. These locations are being actively addressed as part of the ongoing
assessment RWDI is conducting for the 135 Broadway site. We note that these locations are not classified as
Dangerous, and some are in fact existing conditions. Our opinion is that these conditions are affected minimally, if
at all, by the project at 325 Main Street, and therefore cannot be mitigated through any changes at that site. We
recommend they continue to be assessed as part of 135 Broadway.
Please let us know if you have any questions or require further information on this matter.
Yours truly,
Bill Smeaton, P.Eng.

rwdi.com

3.2 SHADOW STUDY
EQUINOX MARCH 21 &R7.1 SHADOWS
SEPTEMBER 21 (EST)
R7.1 SHADOWS
FALL 21) OCTMARCH
EQUINOX 21 (EST)21 & SEPTEMBER 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.13
7.15
EQUINOX
EQUINOX (MARCH 21 & SEPTEMBER
MARCH 21 & SEPTEMBER 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.13
March 21 and September 21 are the Spring and Fall Equinoxes, respectively on which Cambridge experiences roughly equal length day and night.
AMENDMENT OVERVIEW: JANUARY 2017 APPROVED MASSING
PRIOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL

250 BINNEY STREET
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (BLUE GARAGE)
135 BROADWAY
AKAMAI HEADQUARTERS VOLPE BUILDING SITE

145 BROADWAY
PROTO RESIDENTIAL BLDG
Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
FIGURE
FIGURE 7.15A
7.13A – OCT 21,
- MARCH 21, 9:00
9:00AM
AM FIGURE 7.13B
FIGURE - MARCH
7.15B - OCT 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE
FIGURE 7.15C
7.13C - OCT21,
- MARCH 21, 3:00 PM
FIGURE 7.13A - MARCH 21, 9:00 AM FIGURE 7.13B - MARCH 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE 7.13C - MARCH 21, 3:00 PM
New Shadow New Shadow over open space Buildings (Under Construction)
Buildings (Under Construction)
Existing Shadow Existing Shadow over open space Proposed Buildings
Proposed Buildings
MXD INFILL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS NOVEMBER 2018 60
62
325 MAIN MXD INFILL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS NOVEMBER 2018 60
PICKAR D CH I LTON
3.2 SHADOW STUDY
R7.121
SUMMER SOLSTICE JUNE SHADOWS
(EST)
R7.1 SHADOWS
SUMMER SOLSTICE (JUNE 21) FALL
SUMMEROCTSOLSTICE
21 (EST) JUNE 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.14
7.15
SUMMER SOLSTICE JUNE 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.14
June 21 is the summer solstice with the longest day of the year with the least amount of net new shadow.

250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY
Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
FIGURE7.14A
FIGURE 7.15A-–JUNE
OCT 21, 9:00 AM FIGURE7.14B
FIGURE 7.15B- -JUNE
OCT 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE7.14C
FIGURE 7.15C- JUNE
- OCT21,
21, 3:00 PM
FIGURE 7.14A - JUNE 21, 9:00 AM FIGURE 7.14B - JUNE 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE 7.14C - JUNE 21, 3:00 PM
Buildings (Under Construction)
Proposed Buildings
62
PICKAR D CH I LTON
3.2 SHADOW STUDY
FALL OCT 21 (EST) R7.1 SHADOWS
R7.1 SHADOWS
FALL OCT 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.15
FALL OCT 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.15

250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY
Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
FIGURE 7.15A – OCT 21, 9:00 AM FIGURE 7.15B - OCT 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE 7.15C - OCT21, 3:00 PM
FIGURE 7.15A – OCT 21, 9:00 AM FIGURE 7.15B - OCT 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE 7.15C - OCT21, 3:00 PM
New Shadow New Shadow overover
open space Buildings (Under Construction)
Existing Shadow Existing Shadow open space Proposed Buildings
PICKAR D CH I LTON
3.2 SHADOW STUDY
R7.1 SHADOWS
WINTER SOLSTICE DECEMBER 21 (EST)
R7.1 SHADOWS
FALL OCT
WINTER 21 (EST) DECEMBER 21 (EST)
SOLSTICE R7.1 FIG. 7.16
7.15
WINTER SOLSTICE DECEMBER 21 (EST) R7.1 FIG. 7.16

250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY
Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
FIGUREFIGURE 7.15A – OCT 21, 9:00 AM
7.16A - DECEMBER FIGUREFIGURE 7.15B - OCT 21, 12:00 PM
7.16B - DECEMBER FIGURE FIGURE 7.15C - OCT21,
7.16C - DECEMBER 21, 3:00 PM
FIGURE 7.16A - DECEMBER 21, 9:00 AM FIGURE 7.16B - DECEMBER 21, 12:00 PM FIGURE 7.16C - DECEMBER 21, 3:00 PM
New Shadow New Shadow overover
open space Buildings (Under Construction)
Existing Shadow Existing Shadow open space Proposed Buildings
62
PICKAR D CH I LTON
R7.1 THERMAL COMFORT STUDY
MONTHLY COMFORT CONDITIONS (DATA FROM BOSTON LOGAN) R7.1 FIG. 7.17
(7.0) ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE
CONFORT FOR ALL DAYLIGHT HOURS (BOSTON)
COMFORT HOURS FOR ALL DAYLIGHT HOURS
WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL
HOURS OF SUN
250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY
TOO HOT TOO COLD CAN BE COMFORTABLE
CONDITIONS ARE CONDITIONS ARE COMFORTABLE CONDITIONS

UNCOMFORTABLY HOT- UNCOMFORTABLY ARE AVAILABLE-IN THE SUN OR
EVEN IN THE SHADE COLD-EVEN IN DIRECT THE SHADE OR BOTH
SUN Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
138 hours 2022 hours 2246 hours
3% 46% 51%
325 MAIN
EI PICKAR D CH I LTON
MONTHLY HOURS OF OUTDOOR COMFORT (BOSTON LOGAN) R71 FIG. 7.18
(7.0) ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE
AVALIBLE OUTDOOR COMFOR HOURS (BOSTON)
AVAILABLE OUTDOOR COMFORT HOURS
HOURS OF SUN
250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY
SUN BETTER SHADE BETTER EITHER IS GOOD

Phase 1 – Blue
IT IS TOO COLD IN THE SHADE – IT IS TOO HOT IN THE SUN – Phase
IT IS COMFORTABLE IN BOTH THE2 – Magenta
BUT COMFORTABLE BUT COMFORTABLE INMIT THE SUN AND THE SHADE
IN THE SUN SHADE Phase 3 – Yellow
566 hours 650 hours 1030 hours

25% 29% 46%
325 MAIN
(7.0)
ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE
R7.1 FIG. 7.19
“TACTICAL” SUN/ SHADE

READING TAKEN FROM THE
(7.0) ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE ZOOM VIEW
“SPLIT POINT” BETWEEN
SUN AND SHADE
OVERALL

250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY
SUN BETTER SHADE BETTER
145 BROADWAY
IT IS TOO COLD IN THE IT IS TOO HOT IN THE

SHADE – SUN –
BUT COMFORTABLE BUT COMFORTABLE IN
total IN THE SUN THE SHADE
overall
sun/shade
hours only
SUN BETTER 566 hours
SHADE BETTER 650 hours
25% 29%
IT IS TOO COLD IN THE IT IS TOO HOT IN THE
SHADE – SUN –
BUT EICOMFORTABLE BUT COMFORTABLE IN
IN THE SUN THE SHADE
Phase 1 – Blue
GRAPHIC KEY SHOWINGSUN BETTER
HOW SHADE
“TACTICAL SUN” AND BETTERSHADE” ARE
“TACTICAL Phase 2 – Magenta
566SHADE
DEFINED WITHIN THE TWO CRITERIA OF WHEN SUN OR hoursIS BETTER
MIT 650Ahours
DURING YEAR Phase 3 – Yellow
IT IS TOO COLD IN THE IT IS 25%
TOO HOT IN THE 29%
SHADE – SUN –
BUT COMFORTABLE BUT COMFORTABLE IN
IN THE SUN THE SHADE
EI

566 hours 650 hours

(7.0) ENVIRONMENTAL:
EXISTING CLIMATE
CONDITIONS: COMFORT – EXISTING
HOURS ON CONDITION
ROOFTOP GARDEN
(7.0) ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE – EXISTING CONDITION
R7.1 FIG. 7.20
KEY AVALIBLE OUTDOOR

AVAILABLE COMFOR
OUTDOOR HOURS
COMFORT (BOSTON)
HOURS
HOURS OF SUN
250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY
“TACTICAL” SUN/SHADE (HOURS BY MONTH)
140
120 “TACTICAL” SUN/SHADE (HOURS BY MONTH)
EXISTING CONDITION
100
80
60 Phase 1 – Blue
40 Phase 2 – Magenta
20
0
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Existing
EI
325 MAIN
(7.0)
(7.0)HOURS
ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE
CLIMATE
THAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
ENVIRONMENTAL: CLIMATE – DESIGN
B–ALLOWS
EXISTING
SUN OR
– DESIGN REVIEW
CONDITION
CREATES SHADE ON THE ROOFTOP R7.1 FIG. 7.21
REVIEW
GARDEN WHEN IT IS BENEFICIAL FOR COMFORT (“E” EXISTING SHOWN FOR COMPARISON)
KEY AVALIBLE OUTDOOR
AVAILABLE COMFOR
OUTDOOR HOURS
COMFORT (BOSTON)
HOURS
WINTER
WINTER SPRING
SPRING SUMMER
SUMMER FALLFALL
E E.G. COMM. BLDG. B
AMENDMENT OVERVIEW:
E
JANUARY 2017 APPROVED MASSING E PROVIDES
MORE HOURS OF COMFORT
E BY “TACTICAL SHADE”
E
HOURS OF SUN
250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY E

145 BROADWAY
E E
E
E
E E

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Tactical Sun 0.1 0.0 3.3 13.2 36.5 27.2 1.0 4.6 5.0 5.4 1.3 0.1
Tactical Shade - - “TACTICAL”
2.8 SUN/SHADE
5.4 40.5 (HOURS
82.6 BY MONTH)
120.3 123.0 66.2 13.3 - -
Total 0.1 0.0 6.1 18.6 76.9 109.8 121.3 127.6 71.2 18.7 1.3 0.1
“TACTICAL” SUN/SHADE (HOURS BY MONTH)

COMM. BLDG. B OCT 10 MASSING
Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
EI EI
325 MAIN
COMFORT HOURS COMPARISON FOR ROOFTOP GARDEN R7.1 FIG. 7.22
EXISTING CLIMATE
CONDITION VS. COMMERCIAL BUILDING B. (OCT 10 MASSING)
TOTAL “TACTICAL” SUN/SHADE (HOURS)
COMM. BLDG. B
EXISTING CONDITION
EXISTING CONDITION
COMM. BLDG. B
APPROX 20 HOURS
(4% INCREASE IN COMFORT HOURS) PRIOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

COMM. BLDG. B MASSING PROVIDES
145 BROADWAY
MORE HOURS OF COMFORT
FROM JUN THROUGH SEPT
THAN THE EXISTING CONDITION
COMM. BLDG. B MASSING HAS SIGNIFICANT USE TIMES LUNCH-

FEWER HOURS OF COMFORT IN TIME AND AFTER WORK (5-7PM)
APRIL AND MAY FROM JUNE TO SEPTEMBER
EI
COMM. BLDG. B MASSING
ROOFTOP
HAS FEWER HOURS OF
GARDEN CITY
COMFORT IN OCTOBER
GROWERS APRIL
AND NOVEMBER
TO NOVEMBER
Phase 1 – Blue
Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
EXISTING CONDITION COMM. BLDG. B OCT 10 MASSING

325 MAIN
COMFORT HOURS ACHIEVED THROUGH “TACTICAL” SUN/SHADE ON THE ROOFTOP R7.1 FIG. 7.23
GARDEN FOR THE FULL YEAR

250 BINNEY STREET
135 BROADWAY

145 BROADWAY

F DAILY COMFORT (YEAR)
Phase 1 – Blue
EXISTING CONDITION COMM. BLDG. B (OCT 10 MASSING) Phase 2 – Magenta
MIT
Phase 3 – Yellow
IEVED THROUGH
THIS GREEN AREA REPRESENTS
INCREASED COMFORT THROUGH
400 450 500 550 600 650 HRS “TACTICAL” SHADE IN THE SUMMER

DE
3.4 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Ref: 325 Main Street Noise Analysis

January 4, 2019
Page 2
To: Melissa Schrock, Boston Properties Date: January 4, 2019
Eric Mo, Boston Properties
Project #: 12959.02 Table 1 City of Cambridge Noise Standards by Zoning District
From: Quan Tat, Project Manager Re: 325 Main Street Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Noise Analysis Residential in Commercial Industry
Air Quality and Noise Services Residential Area Industrial Area Area
The noise impact analysis evaluated the potential noise impacts associated with the proposed Commercial Building B Octave Band Center Other Other
at 325 Main Street, (the “Project”), including rooftop mechanical equipment and loading activities. This section Frequency (Hz) Daytime Times Daytime Times Anytime Anytime
discusses the fundamentals of noise, noise impact criteria, noise analysis methodology, and potential noise impacts. 31.5 76 68 79 72 79 83
The analysis demonstrates that the Project will continue to comply with City of Cambridge’s noise control ordinance 63 75 67 78 71 78 82
(Municipal Code, Chapter 8.16) and zoning ordinance (Chapter 13.89). 125 69 69 69 69 69 69
250 62 52 68 57 68 73
NOISE IMPACT CRITERIA 500 56 46 62 51 62 67
The City of Cambridge has developed noise impact criteria to help protect the public health and welfare from 1,000 50 40 56 45 56 61
excessive noise. These criteria were used to evaluate whether or not the proposed mechanical equipment will generate 2,000 45 33 51 39 51 57
sound levels that result in adverse impacts. 4,000 40 28 47 34 47 53
8,000 38 26 44 32 44 50
City of Cambridge Noise Code
Single Number 60 50 65 55 65 70
The City of Cambridge has developed noise standards that establish noise thresholds deemed to result in adverse Equivalent, dB(A)
impacts. The noise analysis for the Project used these standards to evaluate whether the proposed development will Source: City of Cambridge Municipal Code, Chapter 8.16, Table 8.16.060E.
generate sound levels that result in potential adverse impacts.
City of Cambridge Zoning Ordinance
The noise standards are provided under Chapter 8.16 of the City of Cambridge Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance).
The City of Cambridge has also developed noise criteria associated with rooftop mechanical equipment.
These standards establish maximum allowable sound levels based upon the land use affected by the proposed
Section 13.89.1 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the following requirement associated with rooftop mechanical
development. Table 1 summarizes the maximum allowable sound levels that should not be exceeded. For a residential
equipment:
zoning district, the maximum noise level affecting residential uses shall not exceed the Residential Noise Standard. The
single number equivalent noise standard for a residential use is 60 dB(A) for daytime periods (7:00 AM to 6:00 PM) “At a minimum, any noise or vibration emanating from new commercial or substantially altered
and 50 dB(A) during other times of the day. commercial buildings shall not be normally perceptible at ground level without instruments at a
distance of one hundred (100) feet from the source lot line and shall comply with the provisions of the
The City of Cambridge noise control regulation considers construction sound levels to be an impact to residential land
City of Cambridge Noise Ordinance applicable to Commercial Areas.”
uses if the L10 sound level is in excess of 75 dB(A), or the Lmax sound level is in excess of 86 dB(A) measured at the lot
of the affected property. METHODOLOGY
The noise analysis evaluated the potential noise impacts associated with the Project’s mechanical equipment and
loading/service activities. The noise analysis included measurements of existing ambient background sound levels and
a quantitative evaluation of potential noise impacts associated with the proposed mechanical equipment (e.g., cooling
towers and emergency generators) and a quantitative analysis of the loading activities. The study area was evaluated
and sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project were identified and examined. The site layout and
building design, as it relates to the loading area and management of deliveries at the Project site were also
considered. The analysis considered sound level reductions due to distance, proposed building design, and
obstructions from surrounding structures
\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.00\tech\Noise\325 Main\325 Main St Noise Analysis_010419 - Revised.docx \\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.00\tech\Noise\325 Main\325 Main St Noise Analysis_010419 - Revised.docx

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.02 KSURP Amend 10\tech\Air Noise\Noise\GIS\project\Noise_Monitoring_Locations 010319.mxd
ROGERS
S TREET
T R EET
REET
M4
SIXT H S
F IF T H ST
January 4, 2019
Page 3
GAL IL EO W
AY
The noise analysis included an evaluation of the study area to identify nearby sensitive receptor locations, which BINNEY
typically include areas of sleep and areas of outdoor activities that may be sensitive to noise. The noise analysis M2
ST REET
R4
identified eight nearby sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the Project. As shown on Figure 1, the receptor
locations include the following:
➢ R1 – Residence Inn Hotel;
➢ R2 – Marriott Hotel;
MUNROE
➢ R3 – Eastgate Apartments; S TREET
➢ R4 – Lofts at Kendall Square Apartments;
➢ R5 – Pedestrian Walkway (Broadway/Binney St);
R6
➢ R6 – Public greenspace south of Cambridge Center Blue Garage; M1
R5
➢ R7 – The Kendall Hotel;
B RO PO
➢ R8 – SOMA Building;
AD TT
WA ER
➢ R9 – Ground Level at 100 feet; and Y ST R
EE
T
➢ R10 – 88 Ames Street
R1
T
EE
These receptor locations, selected based on land use considerations, represent the most sensitive locations in the
TR
vicinity of the Project site.
SS
ET
E
Future exterior sound levels were predicted using Cadna-A, which is an accepted computer noise modeling program
AM
RE
used in the industry. The model uses the sound propagation methodology presented in the International Organization M6
R10
ST
for Standardization 9613 (ISO 9613) standard. Applying the properties of sound propagation over ground, sound R2
IR D
levels were projected to the sensitive receptor locations, taking into consideration distance, intervening objects, and
TH
structures. Existing ambient sound levels and proposed Project-generated sound levels were combined to determine
the proposed mechanical equipment’s potential impact on existing sound levels. These results were compared to the MAIN ST R EET M5
City’s noise criteria.
R7 R9
R8
M3
R3
[ 0 200 400 Feet
Source: MassGIS
Figure 1
M# Monitoring Locations Noise Monitoring and Receptor Locations
R# Receptor Locations
\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.00\tech\Noise\325 Main\325 Main St Noise Analysis_010419 - Revised.docx 325 Main Street Noise Study
Cambridge, Massachusetts
325 MAIN Site Location PICKAR D CH I LTON

January 4, 2019
EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS Page 6
Sound level measurements were conducted using Type 1 sound analyzers (Larson Davis 831 and SoundExpert LxT) to
establish existing ambient conditions. Measurements were conducted during the weekday daytime period FUTURE NOISE CONDITIONS
(approximately 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM) and late-night period (1:00 AM to 3:00 AM) in the vicinity of the Project Site on
The noise analysis evaluated the potential noise impacts associated with the Project’s proposed rooftop mechanical
July 21, 2016. Supplemental measurements were conducted during the daytime (1:00 PM to 3:00 PM) on April 9th,
equipment and loading activities. The analysis determined the potential sound level impacts at the nearby sensitive
2018 and during the late-night period (1:00 AM to 3:00 AM) April 10th, 2018. The noise monitoring program consists
receptor locations.
of five short-term monitoring locations, as shown in Figure 1. In addition, a 24-hr measurement was conducted in an
open lot located at the corner of Binney Street and Fulkerson Street (M4). During the daytime period, the measured Mechanical Equipment
sound levels data under existing conditions were composed of noise from construction activities and vehicles on local
roadways, such as Binney Street, Broadway, and Main Street. The nighttime period sound levels were generally The proposed mechanical equipment will be located within screening walls on the rooftop or in enclosed mechanical
associated with mechanical equipment from nearby buildings. The existing measured sound level data are presented rooms of the Project. During the final design and selection process, appropriate low-noise mechanical equipment will
in Table 2. be selected, including potential noise mitigation measures, such as acoustical enclosures and/or acoustical silencers.
The Project will incorporate noise attenuation measures necessary to comply with City of Cambridge’s noise criteria at
The measured L90 sound levels range from approximately 56 dB(A) to 64 dB(A) during the daytime period and from the sensitive receptor locations.
53 dB(A) to 59 dB(A) during the nighttime period. The result of the noise monitoring program indicates that the
daytime sound levels within the study area are currently exceeding the City of Cambridge’s daytime standard of Since the Project is in the design process, the specific details related to the final selection of mechanical equipment are
60 dB(A) along Broadway and Main Street. The existing sound levels during the nighttime period exceed the City’s unknown at the time of this noise analysis. Based on preliminary design plans, the anticipated rooftop mechanical
nighttime standard of 50 dB(A) for residential use at all evaluated locations. equipment associated with the Project are expected to include the following:
Table 2 Existing Ambient Sound Levels, dB(A) ➢ Cooling towers; and

➢ Emergency generators.
City of Cambridge
Residential District Measured L90 Sound levels associated with the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment were based on manufacturer’s reference
Noise Standard Sound Levels* sound data for the anticipated equipment. Based on the reference sound level data, sound generated from the
proposed generators (assuming simultaneous operation of the rooftop equipment under full load) were projected to
Monitoring Location Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime the sensitive receptor locations using the Cadna-A sound modeling program. Table 3 summarizes the sound levels at
the nearby sensitive receptor locations.
M1 – Broadway 60 50 62 59
M2 – Binney Street 60 50 60 59
M3 – Broadway/Main Street 60 50 58 55
M4 – Lot at Binney St/Fulkerson St 60 50 60 58
M5 – Main Street 60 50 64 53
M6 – Green Garage 60 50 56 53
BOLD values represents sound level that exceeds City standards.
\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.00\tech\Noise\325 Main\325 Main St Noise Analysis_010419 - Revised.docx \\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.00\tech\Noise\325 Main\325 Main St Noise Analysis_010419 - Revised.docx

Table 3 Project Sound Levels, dB(A)
Existing Total
Sound Levels Project Sound Levels Change in Sound Level
As shown in Table 3 above, the sound levels associated with the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment ranges from
Receptor Location Daytime Nighttime Sound Level Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
34 dB(A) to 56 dB(A), which are below the City’s noise standards except for the Marriott Hotel (R2) and 88 Ames Street
R1 – Residence Inn Hotel 62 59 40 62 59 +0 +0 (R10). Even though the results indicate sound levels at the Marriott Hotel (R2) and 88 Ames Street (R10) exceeds the
R2- Marriott Hotel 56 53 52 57 55 +1 +2 City’s overall nighttime standard of 50 dB(A), the value represents the exterior of the building façades. The interior of
R3 – Eastgate Apartments the hotel and residential apartments, which would be considered the sensitive receptor locations, would experience
58 55 34 58 55 +0 +0
lower sound levels due to wall and window constructions as general construction material typically provides 20
R4 – Lofts at Kendal Square Apartments 60 59 34 60 59 +0 +0
decibels of attenuation. The exterior of the surrounding receptors are expected to experience sound level increases of
R5 – Pedestrian Walkway (Broadway/Binney St) 62 59 36 62 59 +0 +0 up to two decibels at ground level. These sound level increases are not perceptible, as 3 decibels is considered the
R6 – Public greenspace (Cambridge Center Blue Garage) 62 59 38 62 59 +0 +0 threshold of perceptibility for the average person. Therefore, the Project’s proposed rooftop mechanical equipment
R7 – The Kendall Hotel complies with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. With greater distances and impeding building structures, receptors located
64 53 50 64 55 +0 +2
further away from the Project are expected to experience lower sound levels associated with the Project’s noise
R8 – SOMA Building 64 53 45 64 54 +0 +1
sources.
R9 – Nearest Ground Level (at 100 ft) 64 53 49 64 55 +0 +2
The Project ‘s emergency generators will be required to adhere to Massachusetts Department of Environmental
R10 – 88 Ames Street 56 53 56 59 58 +3 +5
Protection’s (MassDEP’s) regulations that require such equipment to be certified and registered. As part of the air
permitting/certification process, the Project will be required to meet additional noise requirements described in
MassDEP regulations under the Codes of Massachusetts Regulations (310 CMR 7.00). When the details of the selected
emergency generator are developed, the Applicant will submit the appropriate permit/certification application to
MassDEP, which would include noise mitigation measures (such as acoustic enclosures and exhaust silencers) that may
be necessary to meet MassDEP’s noise criteria.
Service and Loading Activities
All service and loading will be conducted within the Project site, accessed from an existing off-street service entry from
Broadway. The loading areas will be located within the basement level of the proposed building. The loading dock
activities will be managed so that service and loading operations do not impact traffic circulation on the adjacent local
roadways. Since loading and service activities will be enclosed below grade and operations will be managed, noise
\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\12959.00\tech\Noise\325 Main\325 Main St Noise Analysis_010419 - Revised.docx
impacts to nearby sensitive receptor locations are expected to be negligible.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
The construction activity associated with the Project may temporarily increase nearby sound levels due to the use of
heavy machinery. Heavy machinery is expected to be used intermittently throughout the Project’s construction phases,
typically during daytime periods. The construction activities that will generate the highest sound levels may include
demolition, site excavation and grading, and construction of the foundation for the proposed building. A construction
management program will be developed with the City to ensure that the applicable noise regulation is met.
The Project will implement mitigation measures to reduce or minimize noise from construction activities. Construction
vehicles and equipment would be required to maintain their original engine noise control equipment. Specific
mitigation measures may include the following:
➢ Construction equipment would be required to have installed and properly operating appropriate noise muffler
systems.
➢ Appropriate traffic management techniques implemented during the construction period would mitigate
roadway traffic noise impact.


January 4, 2019
Page 9
➢ Proper operation and maintenance, and prohibition of excessive idling of construction equipment engines,
would be required.
Therefore, construction noise levels are proposed to be mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
CONCLUSION OF NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

The noise analysis evaluated the sound levels associated with the Project. The noise analysis determined that daytime
sound levels within the study area are currently exceeding the City of Cambridge’s daytime standard of 60 dB(A) along
Broadway and Main Street. The existing sound levels during the nighttime period exceed the City’s nighttime standard
of 50 dB(A) for residential use at all evaluated locations.
Due to the anticipated location of the proposed equipment within screening walls on the rooftop, the sound levels
associated with the Project’s rooftop mechanical equipment are expected to have no adverse noise impacts at nearby
sensitive receptor locations and will comply with the City’s Noise and Zoning Ordinances. While impacts of the
emergency generator are also expected to be negligible, a separate MassDEP permitting process will allow for further
review of this equipment at a later date. The Project is designed such that the loading areas will be enclosed, which
will attenuate sound levels associated with the loading activities. As a result of the preliminary design, the Project’s
operations will have no adverse noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptor locations.

4. SUSTAINABILITY
4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
The Green Engineer, Inc.

Sustainable Design Consulting
Table of Contents
Article 22: Green Building Report I. Project Description
Submitted for Review: January 4, 2019
II. Affidavit
III. LEEDv4 Core & Shell Scorecard Summary

Commercial Building B IV. LEED Credit Narrative
325 Main Street A. Integrative Process
B. Location and Transportation
C. Sustainable Sites
D. Water Efficiency
E. Energy and Atmosphere
F. Materials and Resources
G. Indoor Environmental Quality
H. Innovation in Design
I. Regional Priority Credits
V. Attachments
Appendix A LEEDv4 CS Project Scorecard (target)
The Green Engineer, Inc. – 325 Main Street Article 22 Report – Page 2 of 15

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commercial Building B at 325 Main Street, part of the MXD Infill Development Concept Plan
within the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan (KSURP), is meeting the Design Review Filing III. LEEDv4 CORE AND SHELL SCORECARD SUMMARY
application requirement with a minimum of LEED Gold certification under the LEEDv4 Core and A. Please refer to the LEED credit summary below and the attached LEEDv4 Core and Shell
Shell rating system. The project scorecard will develop over the course of design, possible (CS) Project Scorecard in Appendix A.
points may be achieved, and any updates to this report will be included in the Building Permit B. The Project anticipates attaining the Gold Certification threshold of 60 credit points by
application. attempting 61 credit points. Additionally, the project has earmarked an additional 16
possible ‘maybe’ credit points that require further research; these credits will remain under
Commercial Building B at 325 Main Street is part of the infill development concept plan, a consideration as the design continues to evolve.
major urban mixed-use project set within the 43-acre KSURP. Phase 2 will include the
demolition of the existing 3 Cambridge Center commercial office building to be replaced with LEED CREDIT SUMMARY Yes Maybe
the new construction of Commercial Building B at 325 Main Street—a 16 story commercial Integrative Process 1 point 0 possible points
office building with ground and second floor active and/or retail space of approximately Location and Transportation 14 points 5 possible points
401,989 square feet. Sustainable Sites (SS) 5 points 3 possible points
Water Efficiency (WE) 5 points 1 possible point
II. AFFIDAVIT Energy & Atmosphere (EA) 17 points 3 possible points
I, Allison Zuchman, do hereby affirm that I have thoroughly reviewed the supporting Materials & Resources (MR) 7 points 1 possible point
documents for LEEDv4 Core and Shell rating system and confirm that Commercial Building B at
Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ) 5 points 1 possible point
325 Main Street meets the requirement for Gold with 61 points and 16 possible (‘maybe’)
Innovation in Design (ID) 4 points 2 possible points
points. Commercial Building B at 325 Main Street, Cambridge, MA has been designed to meet
Regional Priority (RP) 3 points 0 possible points
the green building requirement under Article 22.20 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.
Total Points 61 points 16 possible points
IV. LEED Credit Narrative

Allison Zuchman, The Green Engineer, Inc. The project meets the LEEDv4 Core and Shell Minimum Program Requirements and each of the
LEED Administrator and Sustainability Consultant required Prerequisites.
Registered 12/22/2009
General Project Information
SITE AND BUILDING AREA

GREEN BUSINESS CERTIFICATION INC. CERTIFIES THAT
Total Site Area within the LEED 34,136 sf
Project Boundary (LPB)
Allison Zuchman Total Building Area 401,989 sf
HAS ATTAINED THE DESIGNATION OF Commercial 343,123 GFA sf
LEED AP® Building Design + Retail 42,300 GFA sf
Construction Basement Storage 16,566 sf
by demonstrating the knowledge and understanding of Building Footprint 30,066 sf
green building practices and principles needed to support
the use of the LEED green building program. TRANSPORTATION
Parking Spaces Parking provided in adjacent garage
10098255-AP-BD+C
CREDENTIAL ID
Long-Term Bike Storage LEED requirement: 73 spaces (108 provided).
22 DEC 2009
Short-Bike Storage LEED requirements: 9 spaces (47 provided).
ISSUED OCCUPANCY (Per LEED BD+C Reference Guide, Core & Shell Appendix 1)
20 DEC 2019
Commercial FTE (250/sf) 1,373
Commercial Transients (0/sf) 0
VALID THROUGH
MAHESH RAMANUJAN
PRESIDENT & CEO, U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL
Retail FTE (550/sf) 77
Retail Transients (130/sf) 326
PRESIDENT & CEO, GREEN BUSINESS CERTIFICATION INC.
The Green Engineer, Inc. – 325 Main Street Article 22 Report – Page 3 of 15 The Green Engineer, Inc. – 325 Main Street Article 22 Report – Page 4 of 15

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
LT Credit 4 Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses 6 credit points

A. Integrative Process (IP) The project will meet Option 1 for Surrounding Density by being located in an area with an
average density greater than 35,000 sf/acre. Additionally, the project will meet Option 2 for
IP Credit 1 Integrative Process 1 credit point Diverse Uses by being located within ½ mile walking distance of at least 8 publicly available
The project will meet the intent of this credit through identification of cross discipline diverse uses in at least three separate use categories.
opportunities to design a sustainable building project. Sustainable design focused meetings
were held early and will be ongoing throughout the design process to assist the team in
establishing shared sustainable design and energy efficiency goals for the project. Early design
phase energy modeling has been conducted to review systems synergies and assess areas
where energy loads may be significantly reduced. A water use analysis was conducted to aid in
establishing water use reduction targets.
B. Location and Transportation (LT)
LT Credit 2 Sensitive Land Protection 2 credit points

The project will meet the credit requirements by locating the building on land that has been
previously developed.
LT Credit 3 High Priority Site 2 credit points

The project will meet the credit requirements by locating the building on a site in a U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Qualified Census Tract.
The project is located within ½ mile of the following 8 diverse uses:
LT Credit 5 Access to Quality Transit 3 credit points, 3 maybe points

The Kendall/MIT MBTA station is located less than 0.1 miles walking distance from the closest
functional entry of the project building. Additionally, stops for MBTA Bus lines 64, 68, 85 CT2,
the EZ Ride, and CambridgeSide Galleria shuttle are located within 0.1 miles walking distance
from the closest function entry of the project. In total, the project provides occupants with a
total of 353 weekday transit rides and 187 weekend transit rides within ¼ mile walking
distance.

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
The MBTA intends to replace the entire fleet of existing Red Line rolling stock in the coming
years, which is expected to significantly increase its operating capacity and efficiency. If the
new Red Line cars become operational within 2 years of the project’s certificate of occupancy,
the project would likely be eligible to achieve 3 additional credit points for providing a sufficient
number of additional rides to reach the highest credit threshold.
The office tenant is providing showers with changing facilities for office occupants in the fitness
center in the adjacent building, and the project is considering providing showers with changing
facilities for retail tenants.
LT Credit 7 Reduced Parking Footprint 1 maybe point

There is no parking within this building or the LEED Project boundary. Parking for this building
is provided in the adjacent existing Green Garage. The total existing off-street parking capacity
for the Green Garage is 824 parking spaces. The total parking capacity, for all buildings using
the garage, demonstrates at least a 40% reduction (1 LEED point) below the base ratios
recommended by the Parking Consultants Council. The project may provide preferred carpool
parking for at least 37 spaces in addition to the 5 existing carpool spaces for a total of 42 (5%
of the total parking capacity). Further investigation and location of preferred parking spaces to
be determined. Credit compliance to be confirmed as the project develops.
LT Credit 8 Green Vehicles 1 credit point

824 parking spaces are currently provided within the existing Green Garage. Based on this
parking quantity, the project will provide:
1. At least 3 LEFE spaces in addition to the 39 existing LEFE spaces for a total of 42 (5% of
total parking capacity) located in preferred locations throughout the parking garage.
2. At least 13 electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) in addition to the 4 existing EVCS
for a total of 17 (2% of total parking capacity).
LT Credit 6 Bicycle Facilities 1 maybe point

Exterior short-term and covered long-term bicycle storage is planned for visitors and regular
occupants of the project. The immediate neighborhood provides a direct connection to a local
bicycle network that links to a variety of services with pedestrian and cyclist access.
The project will meet City of Cambridge requirements for bike storage, which are more
stringent than the LEEDv4 LTc6 Bicycle Facilities requirements. At minimum, 73 covered, long-
term bike storage spaces and 9 short-term storage spaces (within 100 feet of the building
entrance) will be provided to meet LEED requirements.

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
C. Sustainable Sites (SS)

SS Credit 7 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines 1 credit point
SS Prerequisite 1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines will outline the sustainable design and energy
The construction manager will be required to submit and implement an appropriate efficiency measures in the project and provide detailed guidance for the tenants to design and
SWPPP/Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Plan for construction activities related to the build in alignment with the project sustainability goals. Information will be included to assist
construction of the project. The ESC Plan will conform to the erosion and sedimentation tenants in pursuing LEED certification for their spaces.
requirements of the applicable NPDES regulations and specific municipal requirements for the
City of Cambridge. Additionally, the ESC Plan will address management and containment of D. Water Efficiency (WE)
dust and particulate matter generated by on site demolition and construction activities. Civil
design drawings will include measures for the implementation of the ESC plan. WE Prerequisite 1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction, 30% Required
Through the use of native/adaptive plant species selection and optimized irrigation system
SS Credit 1: Site Assessment 1 credit point efficiency, the project’s landscape water requirement (as calculated by the EPA WaterSense
A comprehensive site assessment was completed as part of the MXD Infill Development Water Budget Tool) will be reduced by at least 30% from the calculated baseline for the site’s
Concept Plan. The design team will continue to study topography, hydrology, climate, peak watering month.
vegetation, soils, human use, and human health effects specific to Commercial Building B at
325 Main Street to inform the design. WE Prerequisite 2 Indoor Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Required
Through the specification of low flush and flow and high efficiency plumbing fixtures, the project
SS Credit 4 Rainwater Management 3 maybe points will reduce potable water consumption by at least 20% over the baseline calculated for the
The project will implement a stormwater management plan that decreases the volume of building (not including irrigation) after meeting Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance
stormwater runoff and that captures and treats runoff using acceptable best management requirements. Preliminary water use calculations are provided below.
practices (BMP’s). Though a small amount of hardscape will be included around the project
building as part of the site; it is appropriate to consider this project as a zero lot line project for Flush Fixture Type Baseline Design Uses/ Baseline Annual Design Annual %
GPF GPF Day Use (kGallons) Use (kGallons) Savings
the purposes of this LEED credit. Team to determine size of collection tank needed to manage
100% of the rainwater for the 85th percentile storm event. Water Closet 1.6gpf 1.28gpf 3,113 4,980.8 4,102.4
Urinal 1.0gpf .125gpf 1,374 1,374 171.75
A combination of natural and structural BMP measures may be designed for the site. Rainwater Sub-TOTAL annual 1,652,248 970,255 32.74%
control measures will be investigated, engineered and refined as the project undergoes the water savings
design development process. Flow Fixture Type Baseline Design Uses/ Baseline Annual Design Annual %
GPM/GP GPM/GPC Day Use/kGallons Use/kGallons Savings
C
The Project will comply with the Mass DEP Stormwater Management Policy, as well as reduce
Public Lavatory .5gpm 0.35gpm 4,487 1,121.8 812.8
the peak rate and total volume of runoff for the 25-year design storm in the post-development
Shower for FTEs 2.5gpm 1.5gpm 1,450 797.5 557.2
condition to meet the two-year predevelopment condition, as required by Cambridge
FTE Kitchen Sink 2.2gpm 1.5gpm 145 1,812.5 1,126
Department of Public Works (CDPW). In addition to mitigating runoff flow rates and volumes, Sub-TOTAL annual 1,111,279 648,973 33.11%
the Project will also reduce Phosphorus loads from the project site to the CDPW stormwater water savings
infrastructure to comply with the Lower Charles River Total Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). The Project will remove at least 80% of Total Phosphorus through structural TOTAL annual 2,622,503 1,760,252 32.88%
infiltration systems, and will explore non-structural methods to further Total Phosphorous.. water savings
SS Credit 5 Heat Island Reduction 2 credit points WE Prerequisite 3 Building Level Water Metering Required
The roof and non-roof hardscape materials will include light-colored surfaces to reduce the The project will meet the requirements of this prerequisite by installing permanent water
overall heat island effect impact on the project site. The roof membrane will be a high albedo meters that measure the total potable water use for the building and associated grounds. In
roof product with an initial SRI value of 82 minimum. Paving materials will target an initial SR addition to installing the meters, the project will commit to sharing water usage data with the
value of 33 minimum. All parking associated with the project will be located undercover, off-site USGBC for a five-year period beginning on the date the project accepts LEED certification or
in the existing Green Garage. typical occupancy, whichever comes first.
SS Credit 6 Light Pollution Reduction 1 credit point WE Credit 1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction 50% 1 credit point, 1 maybe point
The project plans to meet uplight and light trespass requirements by complying with the LEED The landscape design will incorporate native and adaptive plantings and the design of the
v4 BUG Rating method. The project site is classified under Lighting Zone 3 as per the irrigation system will target at least a 50% reduction (1 point) in potable water use when
Illuminating Engineering Society and International Darky Sky Association (IES/IDA) Model compared to a mid-summer baseline using high controller efficiency and moisture sensors.
Lighting Ordinance User Guide. To meet credit requirements, the site lighting will not exceed Additional water savings are being considered to earn one additional point.
the LEEDv4 allowable luminaire backlight, uplight and glare ratings for this lighting zone.

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
WE Credit 2 Indoor Water Use Reduction 2 credit points Other energy conservation measures (ECMs) that are being considered and evaluated as the
Through the specification of low flow and high efficiency plumbing fixtures, the project will design progresses include but are not limited to the following:
implement water use reduction strategies that target 30% less potable water use annually ¥ Improved interior lighting power density
when compared to EPA baseline fixtures for the building (not including irrigation) after meeting ¥ Energy-efficient exterior lighting
Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements. (Refer to the summary water use ¥ Water re-use for cooling tower
calculations provided under WE Prerequisite 1 above.) ¥ CO2 based demand control ventilation for offices
¥ Optimized thermal comfort and lighting controls
WE Credit 3 Cooling Tower Water Use 1 credit point ¥ Roof-mounted solar photovoltaic system
The project will conduct a one-time potable water analysis for the cooling tower water and
calculate the cycles of concentration. Through increasing the level of treatment in the make-up EA Prerequisite 3 Building Level Energy Metering Required
and/or condenser water, the project will achieve the calculated maximum number of cycles To meet the requirements of this prerequisite, the project will install whole building energy
before any of the parameters analyzed exceed their maximum allowable levels of meters for gas and electricity use by the core and shell project.
concentration. The control parameters that are required to be assessed are: Ca, total alkalinity,
SiO2, Ci, and conductivity. EA Prerequisite 4 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required
CFC based refrigerants will not be used in the building HVAC & R systems. Additionally,
WE Credit 4 Water Metering 1 credit point depending on use of leasable space, equipment such as walk in freezers and coolers installed
The project is planning to install permanent water meters for at least two of the following water by future tenants will be required to meet credit requirements.
subsystems: irrigation, indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings, domestic hot water, boilers with a
projected annual use of 100,000 gallons or more than 500,000 BtuH, reclaimed water, or other EA Credit 1 Enhanced Commissioning 5 credit points, 1 maybe point
process water. In addition to EApr1 Fundamental Commissioning and Verification requirements, enhanced and
envelope commissioning will be pursued. The building owner has engaged a Commissioning
E. Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Agent during the design phase to review the proposed design and ultimately confirm the
building systems are installed and function as intended and desired.
EA Prerequisite 1 Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Required
A third-party Commissioning Agent, (CxA) will be engaged by the Building Owner for purposes Enhanced commissioning scope will include reviewing the owner’s project requirements, and
of providing fundamental commissioning services for the building energy related systems the basis of design, creating, distributing and implementing a commissioning plan, performing a
including HVAC, lighting, domestic hot water systems and building envelope. The CxA will be design review of the project documents, witnessing on-site installations and testing and
required to perform the scope of work required to comply with the prerequisite in accordance performing commissioning of installed HVAC, lighting, lighting controls and domestic hot water
with ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005 and ASHRAE Guideline 1.1-2007 for HVAC & R systems. systems. In addition to the mechanical and electrical systems, fundamental and enhanced
Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) and Basis of Design (BOD) documents will be developed. commissioning requirements will apply to the buildings thermal envelope.
EA Prerequisite 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required The Owner is considering pursuing monitoring-based commissioning for an additional point
To meet the prerequisite, the building performance will demonstrate a minimum of 2% which entails measuring and evaluating the performance data of the building systems post-
improvement in energy use by cost when compared to a baseline building performance as occupancy on a continuous basis with the goal of achieving consistent and optimal efficiency.
calculated using the rating method in Appendix G of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010.
The project is also required to meet the 9th Edition of the MA Energy Code and MA Stretch EA Credit 2 Optimize Energy Performance 8 credit points, 2 maybe points
Energy Code requirements. Based on current design, preliminary energy model results indicate the project is performing
14% - 17% better than the baseline (ASHRAE 90.1-2013) to meet the MA State Stretch Energy
Preliminary energy analysis results demonstrate that the project is anticipated to reduce energy Code. This equates to a 17% - 22% energy cost savings, or 8 -10 points, under LEED v4
costs savings compared to the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 baseline by 17% to 22% depending on the (ASHRAE 90.1-2010). Refer to EA Prerequisite 2 for more details.
energy conservation measures (ECMs) that are incorporated into the final project design. The
savings stated above are the result of the following ECMs: EA Credit 3 Advanced Energy Metering 1 credit point
¥ Improved thermal performance for glazing assembly Advanced energy meters are planned for the base-building design so that tenants will be
¥ Increased roof insulation capable of independently metering energy consumption for all systems dedicated to their space.
¥ Increased wall insulation A sufficient number of meters will be provided to allow the tenants to capture total energy use,
¥ High-efficiency gas-fired, condensing boilers with a minimum of one meter per energy source (electricity, chilled and/or condenser water for
¥ High-efficiency, water-cooled chillers cooling, hot water for heating, etc.) per floor. Meters will be capable of recording data in
¥ Low-flow plumbing fixtures intervals of one hour or less with a remotely accessible building automation system that can
¥ Variable speed, premium-efficiency pumping system report hourly, daily, monthly, and annual energy use.
¥ The primary HVAC system consists of:
o Active Chilled Beams with DOAS and energy recovery (80% EFF)

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
EA Credit 6 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 credit point MR Credit 4 BPDO: Material Ingredients 1 credit point
The HVAC equipment installed in the base building will use refrigerants that have low global The project will attempt this credit via Option 1. The project manual will include the information
warming and ozone depletion potential. Refrigerant calculations will be completed once final and direction for the construction manager and their sub-contractors to provide and submit
MEP equipment has been selected. materials and products documentation identifying the chemical make-up. The documentation
may be Health Product Declarations, Cradle-to-Cradle or Declare certification. The project team
EA Credit 7 Green Power and Carbon Offsets 2 credit points will work to provide documentation for 20 different permanently installed products sourced
The Owner will purchase of carbon offsets through a 5-year contract to offset a minimum of from at least five different manufacturers.
100% of the building’s energy use with renewable sources.
MR Credit 5 Construction and Demolition Waste Management 2 credit points
F. Materials and Resources (MR) The project will meet the requirements of this credit by including a Construction Waste
Management section in Division 1 of the project manual. The specification will include direction
MR Prerequisite 1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required for the construction manager to divert a minimum of 75% of the demolition and construction
Storage of collected recyclables will be accommodated on the ground floor of the project in a waste generated on site from area landfills. The construction waste management plan will
designated recycling area. Recyclable materials collected will include mixed paper, corrugated include tracking 5 waste streams. Diverted material reported will include at least four different
cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals, and the disposal of batteries and electronic waste. material streams. Demolition waste will be separated on site as part of the strategy to meet
Tenants will bring their recyclables to the central storage room. A contracted waste this credit.
management company will collect the recyclables on a regular basis.
G. Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ)
MR Prerequisite 2 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning Required
The project will meet the requirements of this prerequisite by including a Construction Waste IEQ Prerequisite 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required
Management section in Division 1 of the project manual. The specification will include direction The building mechanical systems will be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of
for the construction manager to submit and implement a compliant waste management plan for ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2010 sections 4 through 7 and/or applicable building codes. The
the duration of construction. Waste diversion goals for the project will include at least five mechanical engineer will complete a ventilation rate procedure (VRP) calculator to verify
materials (both structural and nonstructural) targeted for diversion. compliance. Outdoor airflow monitors will be included in the project.
MR Credit 1 Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction 3 credit points IEQ Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Required
The project team is planning to conduct a whole-building life-cycle assessment that Smoking is prohibited in the building and within 25’ of the building. Signage will be posted
demonstrates that the project’s structure and enclosure achieves at least a 10% reduction in a within 10’ of all building entrances to indicate the interior and exterior no-smoking policy.
minimum of three of the six impact categories when compared to a baseline building. One of
the impact categories must be global warming potential. The remaining impact categories that IEQ Credit 1 Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies 2 credit points
will be assessed are: depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, acidification, eutrophication, The project is being designed to incorporate permanent entryway systems, properly enclosed
formation of tropospheric ozone and depletion of nonrenewable energy resources. and ventilated chemical use/storage areas and compliant filtration media. Additionally, C02
monitoring will be performed by tenants in all densely occupied spaces. Credit compliance is
MR Credit 2 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization (BPDO): EPDs 1 credit point dependent on tenants agreeing to meet credit requirement as part of the fit-out scope of work.
The project will attempt this credit via Option 1. The technical specifications will include
direction for the construction manager and their sub-contractors to provide and submit IEQ Credit 2 Low Emitting Materials 1 credit point, 1 maybe point
materials and products Environmental Product Declarations that conform to ISO 14025, 14040, The project will attempt this credit through meeting the compliance criteria for the following
14044, and EN 15804 or ISO 21930 and have at least a cradle to gate scope. The project will compliant categories: interior paints and coatings, adhesives and sealants, flooring, and
work to provide documentation for 20 different permanently installed products sourced from at composite wood. If two categories are achieved, 1 point will be earned (expected). If all four
least five different manufacturers. categories are achieved, 1 additional point will be earned (will be determined during
construction phase).
MR Credit 3 BPDO: Sourcing of Raw Materials 1 maybe point
The project will attempt this credit via Option 2. The technical specification will include IEQ Credit 3 Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan 1 credit point
information for applicable products and materials to meet one of the following extraction The project manual will include direction for the construction manager to develop and
criteria (as applicable): Extended producer responsibility, Bio-Based materials, FSC wood, implement an Indoor Air Quality Management plan in compliance with applicable control
Materials reuse, Recycled Content, and/or regionally extracted and manufactured (within 100 measures as stated in the SMACNA IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings under construction
miles of the project site). (Credit achievement cannot be determined until construction phase.) 2nd Edition, 2007 ANSI/SMACNA 008-2008 Chapter 3. Additional measures will be implemented
to ensure absorptive materials will be protected from moisture damage.

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
NARRATIVE
IEQ Credit 5 Quality Views 1 credit point

A direct line of sight to the outdoors will be provided for 75% of the regularly occupied floor
area. 75% of the regularly occupied floor area will also have quality views to the outdoors
which may include multiple lines of sight; unobstructed views; views to landscaped areas, sky,
pedestrian walkways, and streetscapes. The building will use a test fit tenant layout plan to
demonstrate compliance.
H. Innovation (IN)
INc1 Innovation: Operations and Maintenance (O+M) Starter Kit 1 credit point
The Owner will develop and implement a green cleaning plan that focuses on the use of green
cleaning products and equipment in the common areas.
The Owner will develop and implement an indoor integrated pest management (IPM) program.
The plan will require routine inspection and monitoring, along with the incorporation of
integrated methods, specification of emergency application measures for pesticides, and
communication strategies to building occupants. All cleaning products included in the IPM plan
will adhere to the requirements listed in the Green Cleaning plan for the project.
INc2 Innovation: Purchasing - Lamps 1 credit point

The project will achieve one innovation point for complying with LEED Innovation Credit:
Purchasing – Lamps, which requires that the calculated average mercury content for the project
is below 35 picograms of Hg per lumen hour.
INc3 and INc4 Innovation: To be determined 2 maybe points

The team is exploring options to achieve the remaining 2 Innovation credits.
INc5 Pilot: Integrative Analysis of Building Materials 1 credit point

The project will specify, purchase and install three different permanently installed products that
have a documented qualitative analysis of potential health, safety, and environmental impacts
of the product over its life cycle.
INc6 LEED Accredited Professional 1 credit point

Many members of the team are LEED Accredited Professionals (AP’s).
I. Regional Priority (RP)

Regional Priority Credits (RPCs) are established by the USGBC to have priority for a particular
area of the country. When a project team achieves one of the designated RPCs, an additional
credit is awarded to the project. LEEDv4 RPCs applicable to the Cambridge area include: LTc3
High Priority Site (2 points), SSc4 Rainwater Management (2 points), WEc2 Indoor Water Use
Reduction (4 points), EAc2 Optimize Energy Performance (17%/8 points), EAc5 Renewable
Energy Production (3%/2 points), and MRc1 Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction (2 points).
This project is currently tracking the following RPCs:

RPc1 EAc2 Optimize Energy Performance (17%/8 points) 1 credit point
RPc2 MRc1 Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction (2 points) 1 credit point
RPc3 LTc3 High Priority Site (2 points) 1 credit point
END OF DOCUMENT
The Green Engineer, Inc. – 325 Main Street Article 22 Report – Page 15 of 15

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY
DRAFT LEED SCORECARD
Yes Maybe No
7 1 6 Materials and Resources 14

LEED v4 for Core and Shell Development D Y Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required
Project Scorecard C Y Prereq 2 Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning Required
C 3 0 3 Credit 1 Building Life-cycle Impact Reduction 6

Project Name: 3CC - 325 Main Street C 1 0 1 Credit 2 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization-Environmental Product Declarations 2
Address: 325 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142 C 0 1 1 Credit 3 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization-Sourcing of Raw Materials 2
Date of Issue: 12.21.18 C 1 0 1 Credit 4 Building Product Disclosure and Optimization-Material Ingredients 2
C 2 0 0 Credit 5 Construction and Demolition Waste Management 2

D/C Yes Maybe No
1 0 0 Integrative Process 1 Yes Maybe No
D 1 0 0 Credit 1 Integrative Process 1 5 1 4 Indoor Environmental Quality 10

D Y Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance (TLSA) Required
Yes Maybe No D Y Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required
14 5 1 Location and Transportation 20 D 2 0 0 Credit 1 Enhanced IAQ Strategies (TLSA) 2
D 0 0 N Credit 1 LEED for Neighborhood Development Location 20 D 1 1 1 Credit 2 Low-Emitting Materials 3
D 2 0 0 Credit 2 Sensitive Land Protection 2 C 1 0 0 Credit 3 Construction IAQ Management Plan 1
D 2 0 1 Credit 3 High Priority Site 3 D 0 0 3 Credit 7 Daylight 3
D 6 0 0 Credit 4 Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses 6 D 1 0 0 Credit 8 Quality Views 1
D 3 3 0 Credit 5 Access to Quality Transit 6
D 0 1 0 Credit 6 Bicycle Facilities 1 Yes Maybe No
D 0 1 0 Credit 7 Reduced Parking Footprint 1 4 2 0 Innovation 6

D 1 0 0 Credit 8 Green Vehicles 1 D 1 0 0 Credit 1 Innovation Credit: O&M Starter Kit - Green Cleaning + IPM 1
D 1 0 0 Credit 2 Innovation Credit: Purchasing Lamps / Low Mercury 1

Yes Maybe No D 1 Credit 3 Innovation Credit: TBD 1
5 3 3 Sustainable Sites 11 D/C 0 1 0 Credit 4 Innovation Credit: TBD 1
C Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required D/C 1 0 0 Credit 5 Pilot Credit: Integrative Analysis of Building Materials 1
D 1 0 0 Credit 1 Site Assessment 1 C 1 0 0 Credit 6 LEED Accredited Professional 1
D 0 0 2 Credit 2 Site Development; Protect or Restore Habitat 2
D 0 0 1 Credit 3 Open Space 1 Yes Maybe No
D 0 3 0 Credit 4 Rainwater Management 3 3 0 1 Regional Priority 4

D 2 0 0 Credit 5 Heat Island Reduction 2 02142 - Cambridge, MA: EAc5 (2 pts), EAc2 (8 pts), LTc3 (2 pts), MRc1 (2 pts), SSc4 (2 pts), WEc2 (4 pts)
D 1 0 0 Credit 6 Light Pollution Reduction 1 D 1 0 0 Credit 1 EAc2 Optimize Energy Performance (17%/8 pts) 1
D 1 0 0 Credit 7 Tenant Design and Construction Guidelines 1 C 1 0 0 Credit 2 MRc1 Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction (2 pts) 1
D 1 0 0 Credit 3 LTc3 High Priority Site (2 points) 1

Yes Maybe No D 0 0 1 Credit 4 WEc2 Indoor Water Use Reduction (4pts) 1
5 1 5 Water Efficiency 11
D Y Prereq 1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction Required Yes Maybe No
D Y Prereq 2 Indoor Water Use Reduction (TLSA) Required 61 16 33 110

D Y Prereq 3 Building-level Water Metering Required Certified: 40-49 points, Silver: 50-59 points, Gold: 60-79 points, Platinum: 80+ points
D 1 1 0 Credit 1 Outdoor Water Use Reduction 2
D 2 0 4 Credit 2 Indoor Water Use Reduction (TLSA) 6
C 1 0 1 Credit 3 Cooling Tower Water Use 2
D 1 0 0 Credit 4 Water Metering 1
Yes Maybe No
17 3 13 Energy and Atmosphere 33

C Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Required
D Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance (TLSA) Required
D Y Prereq 3 Building-level Energy Metering Required
D Y Prereq 4 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required
C 5 1 0 Credit 1 Enhanced Commissioning 6
D 8 2 8 Credit 2 Optimize Energy Performance (TLSA) 18
D 1 0 0 Credit 3 Advanced Energy Metering 1
C 0 0 2 Credit 4 Demand Response 2
D 0 0 3 Credit 5 Renewable Energy Production 3
D 1 0 0 Credit 6 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1
C 2 0 0 Credit 7 Green Power and Carbon Offsets 2

4.2 SUSTAINABILITY
RESILIENCE NARRATIVE
The Green Engineer The Green Engineer
Sustainable Design Consulting www.greenengineer.com Sustainable Design Consulting www.greenengineer.com
¥ Infiltration tank
¥ On site retention system
Memo ¥ Hazard removal
¥ Water tight utility conduits
Project: 325 Main Street ¥ Waste water back flow preventers
Re: RESILIENCY NARRATIVE ¥ Storm water back-flow preventers
Date Issued: January 4, 2019
325 Main Street has been designed to mitigate and respond to the potential impacts of climate END OF MEMO
change including extreme rain and storm events, flooding and sea level rise, high winds, and the
accompanying potential power outages and demands on utilities.
The resiliency measures implemented at 325 Main Street include the following:
To reduce the heat island effect:

¥ Highly reflective hardscape
¥ Low-albedo roof
¥ Shade trees and planted areas where possible
To reduce overall energy and water consumption:

¥ High performance envelope glazing
¥ High performance lighting and controls
¥ High performance HVAC systems including chilled beams, heat recovery, magnetic bearing
chillers, and condensing boilers
¥ Low flow water fixtures
¥ Stormwater collection tank for cooling tower make up water
To ensure the integrity of critical building systems during a severe storm or power outage:
¥ Finish floor elevation established above the local flood elevation
o Flood risks maps for the area indicate that the site is not in a designated flood zone.
The Charles River and Broad Canal is a flood zone designation AE El. 4 (El. 15.65
Cambridge Base). 3 feet has been added to the flood elevation to account for sea
level rise. Therefore, the flood level is at El. 18.65 Cambridge Base. The floor slab is
at El. 21.
o The main mechanical utility room is located on the 17th floor. Critical electrical
equipment (transformers and switchgear) will be located on 2nd floor of the building.
¥ Waterproof materials at storefront sills
¥ Emergency mechanical equipment placed above flood levels
¥ Emergency generator is located 17th floor. Tenant will have the ability to add a separate
tenant specific generator which they can use at their discretion. Tenants will use the base-
building generator only for power to emergency lighting.
¥ Fuel oil pump in basement is equipped with a submersible pump and the controls are located
in a closet on the ground floor.
¥ Transformer vault and fire pump are located at least 5 feet above flood levels.
¥ Buried utilities
23 Bradford St., Concord, MA 01742 Page 1 of 2 T: 978.369.8978 23 Bradford St., Concord, MA 01742 Page 2 of 2 T: 978.369.8978

4.3 SUSTAINABILITY
PATHWAYS TO NET ZERO STATEMENT
www.greenengineer.com www.greenengineer.com
Memo Proposed
% Reduction
Project: 325 Main Street Elec (kWh) Gas (Therms) Total (kBTU) % of Total vs baseline
Re: PATHWAY TO NET ZERO READY
Date Issued: January 4, 2019 Space Heating 1,829 46,935 4,699,741 31.0% 33.4%
Space Cooling 288,476 984,321 6.5% ‐14.1%
Heat Rejection 5,626 19,197 0.1% ‐96.6%
Executive Summary
Fans 257,107 877,286 5.8% 32.3%
The purpose of this study is to outline a potential pathway to “net zero emissions” for the 325 Main Street Receptacles 1,179,850 4,025,816 26.6% 0.0%
project. “Net zero emissions ready” is understood to be a building that has a low site energy consumption
and uses no fossil fuels. The current design for 325 Main Street creates a low site energy building (Site EUI of Interior Lighting 976,271 3,331,175 22.0% 14.4%
33 kbtu/sf/yr based on latest model iteration) but relies on natural gas for heating. Future advances in lighting Exterior Lighting 9,741 33,238 0.2% 0.0%
and control technology, and the use of air source heat pumps, could allow the building to be converted to all
electric in the future. In addition, there is opportunity for a small amount of onsite solar to be incorporated, but Pumps 290,102 989,869 6.5% ‐33.7%
not enough to bring the building to net zero onsite. DHW 52,339 178,588 1.2% 28.8%
Totals 3,061,341 46,935 15,139,230 16.7%
Current Model Results
Site EUI 33.1
A preliminary energy model has been performed by EnviENERGY for the 325 Main Street project. In this
effort, the current proposed design has been compared against a baseline building designed to meet
ASHRAE 90.1-2013. Future Options
The baseline building shows the following model results: Five opportunities for future improvement of 325 Main Street have been identified.
Baseline 1) Although beyond the control of the landlord, it is assumed that tenants will design their spaces to be
at least 25% below code allowable LPD.
Elec (kWh) Gas (Therms) Total (kBTU) % of Total 2) Lighting technology continues to improve, as LED technology and automatic lighting controls become
commonplace. We assume that over time, future lighting improvements will reduce both interior
Space Heating 0 70,614 7,061,400 38.9% lighting and exterior lighting by about 50%. This would also have the effect of reducing cooling loads
Space Cooling 252,751 862,422 4.7% while increasing heating loads.
3) Receptacle loads represent the biggest single energy end use in the proposed building, due to the
Heat Rejection 2,861 9,762 0.1%
high numbers of computers, monitors, printers, etc. expected in the building. Currently plug loads are
Fans 379,783 1,295,874 7.1% growing and continue to grow, as phones, tablets, etc. proliferate, along with the phantom loads their
Receptacles 1,179,850 4,025,816 22.2% chargers create. We assume that this trend will reverse over time and estimate a future plug load
savings at 25%. This would also have the effect of reducing cooling loads while increasing heating
Interior Lighting 1,140,481 3,891,483 21.4% loads.
Exterior Lighting 9,741 33,238 0.2% 4) While not currently economically feasible, the project could eventually be converted to air source heat
pump technology for heating and cooling. We would expect this to occur at the end of life of the
Pumps 216,983 740,377 4.1% original HVAC systems.
DHW 73,466 250,676 1.4%
Incorporating these four changes would give this approximate energy consumption:
Totals 3,255,916 70,614 18,171,048
Site EUI 39.8 Future

% Reduction
The proposed design incorporates a large number of energy efficiency measures including: high efficiency Elec (kWh) Gas (Therms) Total (kBTU) % of Total vs baseline
condensing boilers, high efficiency chillers, a chilled beam hydronic heating and cooling distribution system,
and an improved building envelope. Space Heating 438,969 0 1,497,824 9.9% 78.8%
Space Cooling 230,781 787,457 5.2% 8.7%
The proposed building shows the following model results: Heat Rejection 4,501 15,357 0.1% ‐57.3%

4.3 SUSTAINABILITY
PATHWAYS TO NET ZERO STATEMENT
www.greenengineer.com www.greenengineer.com
Fans 231,396 789,557 5.2% 39.1%

Receptacles 884,888 3,019,362 19.9% 25.0% 100
Interior Lighting 366,102 1,249,191 8.3% 67.9% 90

Exterior Lighting 4,871 16,619 0.1% 50.0%
Pumps 275,597 940,376 6.2% ‐27.0% 80
DHW 52,339 178,588 1.2% 28.8%
70
Totals 2,489,442 0 8,494,330 53.3%
Site EUI 18.6 kBTU/sf/yr 60
50
5) In addition, there is opportunity for some onsite solar. The project team has estimated about 50kW Gas
capacity is available based on current PV technology. 40 Electric
Future + Onsite Solar 30
% Reduction
Elec (kWh) Gas (Therms) Total (kBTU) % of Total vs baseline 20
Space Heating 438,969 0 1,497,824 9.9% 78.8%
10
Space Cooling 230,781 787,457 5.2% 8.7%
Heat Rejection 4,501 15,357 0.1% ‐57.3% 0
Energy Star ‐ Code ‐ Proposed Possible Possible
Fans 231,396 789,557 5.2% 39.1%
75 ASHRAE Design Future Future with
Receptacles 884,888 3,019,362 19.9% 25.0% 90.1‐2013 Onsite Solar
Interior Lighting 366,102 1,249,191 8.3% 67.9%
Exterior Lighting 4,871 16,619 0.1% 50.0%
Pumps 275,597 940,376 6.2% ‐27.0% Conclusions
DHW 52,339 178,588 1.2% 28.8%
The current design of 325 Main Street results in a low energy building. Advances in technology will further
Solar ‐58,594 ‐199,931 ‐1.3% n/a reduce consumption. The future conversion to heat pump technology would allow the building to be “net zero
energy ready”. While there are some opportunities for onsite renewables, it is not expected to be sufficient to
Totals 2,430,848 0 8,294,399 54.4%
meet all the building's future energy needs. To achieve carbon neutrality, greening of grid electricity, offsite
Site EUI 18.1 kBTU/sf/yr renewables and/ or the purchase of carbon offsets would have to occur.

Any further carbon emission reductions would have to come through greening of grid electricity, offsite END OF MEMO
renewables, and/or carbon offsets.
In context we see that the current proposed design is low energy, compared to a typical office building scoring
75 on the Energy Star scale.

4.4 SUSTAINABILITY
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Misc. Heat Total

Energy Consumption Area Light Equipment Space Heating Space Heating Space Cooling Pump & Aux Rejection Ventilation Exterior Electricity Total Natural
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (Therm) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) Fans (kWh) DHW (kWh) Usage (kWh) (kWh) Gas (Therm)
ASHRAE 90.1‐2013 Baseline 1,140,481 1,179,850 0 70,614 252,751 216,983 2,861 379,783 73,466 9,741 3,255,916 70,614
Proposed Design 976,271 1,179,850 1,829 46,935 288,476 290,102 5,626 257,107 52,339 9,741 3,061,341 46,935
Savings 164,210 0 ‐1,829 23,679 ‐35,725 ‐73,119 ‐2,765 122,676 21,127 0 194,575 23,679
% Savings 6% 34%
Misc. Electric Gas Heat Ventilation Exterior Electricity Natural Gas

Greenhouse Gas
Area Light Equipment Space Heating Space Heating Space Cooling Pump & Aux Rejection Fans DHW Usage GHG Emission GHG Emission
Emissions (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons of CO2) (tons) (tons)
ASHRAE 90.1‐2013 Baseline 405 419 0 413 90 77 1 135 26 3 1,156 413
Proposed Design 347 419 1 275 102 103 2 91 19 3 1,087 275
Savings 58 0 ‐1 139 ‐13 ‐26 ‐1 44 8 0 69 139
% Savings
Conversion:
MWH to Lbs of CO2 (Electricity) 710 ISO New England CO2 Emission factor: 710 lb of CO2 per MWH reduction in electricity use
MBTU to Lbs of CO2 (Natural Gas) 117.08 Direct GHG Emissions Factor for the US from EPA
Lbs to Short Tons 0.0005
208 tons of GHG Emissions Savings is equivalent to:
OR OR
325 MAIN ST | 3CC

4.5 SUSTAINABILITY
GEOTHERMAL FEASIBLITY ASSESSMENT
The Green Engineer The Green Engineer
Sustainable Design Consulting www.greenengineer.com Sustainable Design Consulting www.greenengineer.com
Installation Costs
Memo A rough estimate of theoretical installation costs for the GSHP system has also been performed. The 500-ton
cooling load would require about 125 separate 400-foot deep boreholes. The cost of each borehole is estimated
Project: 325 Main Street to be in the range of $10,000, generating a total cost of the well field of $1.25 million. Assuming a 20-foot
Re: GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP ANALYSIS spacing between boreholes, the borehole field would be approximately 1.25 acres in size.
Date Issued: January 4, 2019
Other costs are assumed to be roughly equal between the base system and the GSHP system. The cost of heat
pumps would be roughly offset by the savings in eliminating the boilers and chillers.
Executive Summary
325 Main Street is designed with a high-efficiency heating and cooling system including high-efficiency Other Considerations
condensing boilers, water-cooled chillers, and cooling towers. An alternative ground source heat pump (GSHP)
heating and cooling system has been analyzed. The analysis shows that the GSHP system would potentially The primary advantage of the GSHP is that it would eliminate the use of fossil fuels on site. It should also be
reduce carbon emissions by about 14% but would increase capital costs by more than $1.25 million dollars, and noted that utility rates change, and an increase in the price of natural gas relative to electricity could make the
energy costs by about $13,000 per year. In addition, an area of about 1.25 acres would be required for the GSHP more financially attractive.
borehole field, on a site that is unable to accommodate boreholes due to underground utilities and adjacency to
the MBTA Kendall Square Station and other buildings. Based on these results the GSHP alternative does not Because of the presence of the MBTA Kendall Square Station below and adjacent to the site, it is not clear that
appear attractive. any boreholes could be installed.
Analysis Conclusions
Our analysis is based on energy modeling result tabulated by EnviENERGY. Peak and annual loads from their While GSHP systems are typically very efficient, the proposed chiller-boiler system is also highly efficient and
model have been post-processed to estimate the change in energy consumption. This is intended to be a shows lower energy costs in both the heating and cooling seasons. The elimination of fossil fuels is a worthy
conceptual level analysis – full simulation of the GSHP has not been performed. long-term goal but the very high initial costs and the lack of any energy cost savings make this a difficult
investment to undertake. In addition, the size of the well field itself presents a challenge on this constrained site.
The base design includes the conventional systems shown in the current design documents. This includes 95% All factors considered, the GSHP alternative does not appear attractive.
efficient condensing boilers and water-cooled chillers with an efficiency of approximately 0.56 kW per ton. The
alternative system proposed would replace the boilers and chillers with water-to-water ground source heat
pumps. The heat pump efficiencies are estimated to be 3.4 COP for heating and 18.2 EER for cooling (Based on
Climate Master Tranquility Series). END OF MEMO
Utility rates are estimated as follows:

Natural gas – $1.10 per therm,
Electricity - $0 .155 per kilowatt-hour.
Our analysis assumes an estimated cooling load of about 500 tons, and estimated heating load of 11 million BTU
per hour.
The table below shows the results of our analysis.
Gas Electricity
Consumption Consumption Energy CO2e
(Therms) (kWh) Cost ($) (kg)
Baseline 46,935 293,624 $97,140 324,084
GSHP 0 711,402 $110,267 181,262
Savings 46,935 -417,778 -$13,127 142,822
The energy penalty represents an increase in total annual energy costs of about 2.5%

4.6 SUSTAINABILITY
COGEN ANALYSIS
Combined Heat and Power
CHP System Information*

Executive Summary
1 CHP System Type Microturbine
This study presents the results of a preliminary Combined Heat and Power (CHP) analysis for the 325 Main Street
project located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While there is a reduction in the building operating cost due to the shared
2
CHP System Capacity, kW 245 heating/ electric generation, the initial analysis seems to indicate a negative environmental impact associated with the
building annual GHG emissions. Utilizing the ISO 2016 New England Average System Emission Rates2, the analysis
shows a small increase in the building annual GHG generation which is due to the relatively low heating demand in an
3 CHP Electric Efficiency 26.7% office building and the higher GHG emissions associated with the natural gas used in the CHP. Therefore, utilizing a
CHP plant for this office building is not environmentally beneficial.
4 CHP Heat Output, Btu/kWh 4,632
5 CHP Heat Output, MMBtu/hour 1.1 Analysis
6 CHP System Fuel Cost (Natural Gas), $/MMBtu $9.83
The potential installation of an individual CHP plant has been investigated based on the site path energy modeling
for heating energy, utilizing the EPA LEED CHP calculator, and the results are presented in this report. The LEED
7
CHP calculator is a tool to help LEED project teams estimate the energy and energy cost savings associated with
CHP O&M Cost, cents/kWh $0.0120 utilization of CHP systems, and is intended to be used at the very early stages of building design so that CHP is given
consideration as an energy option. Eight inputs are required for the worksheet to perform the calculations. There are
several default values, such as fuel price, which can be supplied as an average value for the state where the project is
located. We obtained the annual (2017-18) Massachusetts average utility rates for the commercial sector from the US
1 The CHP system type identified by the calculator to best meet the Energy Information Administration website.
energy needs of the Baseline Building Other inputs include the average monthly electric and heating demand, which were obtained from the current energy
simulation. The worksheet contains the performance characteristics of various CHP systems as the basis for estimating
2 The CHP system size identified by the calculator to best meet the energy costs. The calculator selects one of these CHP systems based on the inputs entered by the user. We assumed
energy needs of the Baseline Building. In the absence of a load a thermal efficiency of 78% for the CHP system in this application.
profile that shows the Baseline Building’s electric and thermal Utilizing the average system emission rates, the building annual GHG generation slightly increases and that is due to
demands over time, the CHP system is sized using average the higher GHG emissions associated with the natural gas used in the CHP and the relatively low heating demand in
building electric and heating demands. an office building; Residential uses generally do better with co-generation than commercial/office buildings because
a residential use has both heating and domestic hot water requirements. As shown in the following tables, while there
3 The electric efficiency of the specified CHP system is a reduction in the building operating cost due to the shared heating/ electric generation, the building annual GHG
emission increases by 83 tons per year.
4 The thermal output of the CHP system on a Btu/kWh basis
5 The thermal output of the CHP system on an MMBtu/hr basis
6 The price of fuel for the CHP system
7 The non-fuel operating and maintenance cost of the CHP system in

$/kWh. Note: O&M charges are not included in the annual energy
cost calculations presented below since the "Optimize Energy
Performance" credit calculations only include the cost of purchased
utility electricity and fuel required for the CHP system and other on- 2
https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/2016_emissions_report.pdf
site thermal needs.
325 MAIN ST | 3CC

4.6 SUSTAINABILITY
COGEN ANALYSIS
Combined Heat and Power
Estimate of Annual Energy Costs of the Baseline Building with and without CHP
Baseline Building: Baseline Building:

Difference
No CHP With CHP
Energy Use
Annual Electricity Use
Annual Purchased Power, kWh 3,061,344 2,094,899 (966,445)
Annual CHP Power Generation, kWh 0 966,445 966,445
Total Annual Electricity Use, kWh 3,061,344 3,061,344 0
Annual Thermal Energy Use
Non-CHP Thermal Use*, MMBtu/yr 4,692 215 (4,477)
CHP Thermal Used, MMBtu/yr 0 4,477 4,477
Total Thermal Energy Use, MMBtu/yr 4,692 4,692 0
Annual Fuel Use
Non-CHP Thermal Fuel Use*, MMBtu/yr 6,015 276 (5,739)
CHP Fuel Use, MMBtu/yr 0 12,366 12,366
Annual Total Fuel Use, MMBtu 6,015 12,642 6,626
Energy Costs
Purchased Electricity $456,140 $326,540 ($129,600)
Purchased Fuel $59,131 $124,269 $65,138
Annual Energy Costs $515,271 $450,809 ($64,462)
Simple CHP Calculator - DOER
$64,462
Energy Cost Savings
12.51%
* Non-CHP Thermal Use is from on-site boilers or heaters that are not part of the CHP system. The CHP system is
assumed to have a 95% availability, so an auxiliary boiler would be used when the CHP system is down for maintenance,
or for times when the site thermal demand exceeds the thermal output of the CHP system.
CHP Electricity Savings & Natural Gas Annual Emissions Savings
Individual CHP Consumption (with Average Emission Rate for Electricity)
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Energy Input Gas Consumed in Electricity Gas Saved Gas Used Total
Calculations Electric Offset Offset CHP (Note 1) a (Note 2) b c a + b + c
kWh MMBTU MMBTU tons per year tons per year tons per year tons per year
325 Main Street 966,445 5,088 12,366 343 298 ‐724 ‐83
Note (1): 2016 ISO New England Average System CO2 Emission Rate for Electricity: 710 lb of CO2 per MWH
Note (2): CO2 Emission factor for Natural Gas: 117.08 lb of CO2 per MMBTU of natural gas
Note (3): Negative values indicate an increase in GHG Emissions
Energy Input Offset = Total Thermal Energy Use (from the CHP table) / Boiler Average Efficiency (88%)
Gas Consumed in CHP = Annual Total Fuel Use with CHP
325 MAIN ST | 3CC

4.7 SOLAR READY PLAN / GREEN ROOF NOTE:
ROOF PLAN
The solar ready and green roof sections are offererd to demonstrate how 325
Main could offer a solar array or green roof in the future. This Design Review

            
proposal does not contemplate an immediate plan to include solar or green roofs.
Pending final location of all

necessary roof penetrations
1

Pending final location of all

necessary roof penetrations


 4

1
Potential PV Area 
2
50 kW
2

2

2
Potential PV Area
2


 2
 3
2
MA
IN
ST
RE
ET
SOLAR READY HIGH LEVEL DETAILS:
• Estimated project size: 50 kWDC (40 kWAC) (low profile, 5 degrees)

• Estimated production: 58,600 kWh in year one (about 1.5% of Building Energy Costs)
• Minimum set back: 8 ft from roof edge
• Structural: Require direct attachment into engineered dunnage or roof
AXONOMETRIC
• Electrical: requires 4 inch chase to electrical room for behind the meter in interconnection; potentially requires a 4
inch chase to an accessible location for an external disconnect GREEN ROOFS & OCCUPIED ROOFS
• Wall space for inverter near project: Room for 2 x SolarEdge SE20K inverters
1) Potential PV Roofs
(http://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-three-phase-us-inverter-datasheet.pdf)
2) Potential Tenant Improvement Occupied or Green Roofs
3) Public / Retail Terrace
Note: 50 KWD Would produce about 58,500 kWh in year one (about 1.5% of Building Energy Costs)
4) Potential Solar Roofs

5. DESIGN GUIDELINES
5.1.1 BUILT FORM
ARCHITECTURAL IDENTITY
A rc hitec t ural I d ent i ty 4 . Bu i lt Form
5. Built Form
The existing Kendall Square embraces various styles of developments, each symbolizing
the predominant economy of different eras: industrial and manufacturing, R&D, and
now, the knowledge economy. Recently, companies are increasingly seeking buildings
with large floor plates to allow greater flexibility to accommodate multiple disciplines,
and to provide opportunities for interaction, collaboration, and creativity.
a. Architectural Identity of Kendall Square

Goal: Architectural composition should particularly emphasize a distinct identity a. Building facades align with existing buildings, giving a sense of spatial cohesiveness to the sidewalks.
for the building as well as for Kendall Square. This identity should be legible from
adjacent streets and critical viewpoints, as well as within the overall Kendall
Square skyline when seen from a distance.
Measure: Methods of creating a distinct architectural composition include use

and proportioning of materials, colors and shapes that differ from those of
Kendall Square Design Guideline

adjacent buildings.
Goal: Design buildings to help create streetwalls, where appropriate, to help
Pickard Chilton Design

frame the sidewalks, plazas, and other public spaces in Kendall Square.
A rc hitec t ural I d ent i ty 4 . Bu ilt Form
Measures:
a. Align new facades with existing ones if doing so helps give a sense of spatial
cohesiveness to the sidewalks.
b. Allow breaks in the streetwall if needed to help define entryways to buildings.
c. Streetwall design should take into account the need to provide active ground b. Breaks on the streetwall help define entryways to the building.
floor uses.
Goal: Convey the act and spirit of innovation in Kendall Square through
transparency that directly reveals activity and displays visual media.
Measures:
a. Use transparent building materials.
b. Install media displays that show the works being done inside the buildings;
avoid “advertising ” imagery
c. Install interactive media to bring cutting-edge technology closer to the
public, directly revealing the scene of innovators at work
20%
77% 57%
Total Active Use 58%
on Main Street Total Active Use
adjacent to Plaza
Examples of a distinct architectural composition of Kendall Square (left: view from Watermark plaza near c. Streetwall design allows for active ground use on Main Street as well as adjacent to Kendall Plaza.
Broad Canal walk, right: view from One Kendall Square plaza, Cambridge)

9
5.1.2 BUILT FORM
S cale and M ass i n g 4 . Bu ilt Form
SCALE AND MASSING
b. Scale and Massing

Goal: Design buildings to minimize monolithic massing and break down the scale
of large buildings
Measures: TOP
a. Generally, buildings should have a clearly expressed base, middle, and top. TOP
This division should be expressed within the streetwall height zone as well
as for buildings exceeding streetwall height.
b. Pay special attention to the first floors (bottom 20 feet) of buildings,
where buildings relate the most to the street and pedestrians. Different MIDDLE
design guidelines may be applicable depending on location and uses of MIDDLE

buildings.
BASE
BASE

Clearly expressed base, middle,
SOUTHEAST VIEW NORTHWEST VIEW
and top for tall buildings will bring
unique identity for each building

and will contribute to the overall
architectural rhythm
Differentiated facade within the

streetwall height will break down the
apparent scale of buildings a. Massing is organized to clearly express a well defined base, middle, and top.
b. Differentiated facade within the streetwall height.
12 325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

5.1.3 BUILT FORM
PARK EDGES
23’- 0”
S cale and M ass i n g 4 . Bu ilt Form
130’- 0”
c.– Park Edges
Goal: Development around parks and plazas should support an environment that
is active, safe, and welcoming to a wide spectrum of users throughout the day,
week and year.
17’- 0”
Measures : PLA
a. Pay special attention to scale and shadows of 55’- 6” ZA
buildings along park edges.
b. Set back about two-thirds of the building
façade above 85 feet from the principal façade SOUTHEAST VIEW
depth of approximately 15 feet

c. Create vertical breaks for building volumes
above 120’ in height facing the park -- façades
facing the park exceeding 100’ in width should

11’- 0”
be separated from adjacent façades by a gap
of approximately 50 feet, extending back 50
feet from the ground level façade. Residential
balconies may project up to 4 feet into
setbacks and gaps.
d. Façade areas without setback may be 14’- 0”
appropriate at corners or in specific locations Example of a building massing
located at park edges
to create architectural variety.
N
R DE
GA
NORTHWEST VIEW
Along park edges, tall building volumes should be set back behind lower ones to reduce
shadow impacts. Buildings should also be set back above 85 feet to create intimate walking a. Facade setbacks allow light and air to rooftop garden.
experience by breaking down the scale of buildings. (left: University Park, Cambridge right:
Marathon Landing, Coal Harbour, Vancouver)
V isual I nte r e st 4. Bui lt Form
5.1.4 BUILT FORM

VISUAL INTEREST
c. Visual Interest
Goal: Buildings should reflect a rhythm and variation appropriate to the urban
context.
Measures:
a. Express bay widths of 16 to 25 feet in predominantly residential areas and
25 to 50 feet along edges where commercial and institutional uses are
prevalent.
b. Establish an urban rhythm by creating a major vertical break for every 100’
of façade length with a displacement of approximately 8’ in depth or that
30
30
’-0
’-0
divides building form into major distinct massing elements.
”
30
30
’-0
’-0
”
”
30
30
’-0
’-0
”
”
30
30
” ”
’-0
’-0
’-6 ’-6
”
42 42
40
40
” ”
’-0
’-0
’-0 ’-0
”
41 41
” ”
’-6 ’-6
42 42

a. Massing reflects a rhythm and variation that is appropriate to the urban context. Typical bay widths on North and

South facades are organized on a nominal 30’ module and East and West facades on a nominal 40’ module.
29
’-0
”
a. Bay widths of 16 to 25 feet a. Bay widths of 25 to 50 feet b. Example of a vertical break
for residential uses for commercial and institutional uses
38
’-0
”
32
32
’-0
’-0
”
”
40
40
’-0
’-0
”
”
36
43
’-8
’ -0
”
”
36
11
’-8
0-
”
0”
”
’-0
36
25
’-8
”
40
”
40
0 ”
’-0
0’- 0
0’-
’-0
”
13
”
8
”
’-0
25

16 b. Vertical breaks help to define the massing and break it up into distinct massing elements.

5.1.4 BUILT FORM
V isual I nte r e st 4. Bui lt Form
VISUAL INTEREST
d. Visual Interest
e.
Goal: Where appropriate, vary the architecture of individual buildings to create

architecturally diverse districts.
Measures:
a. Use variations in height and architectural elements such as parapets,
cornices, passive shading devices, illumination and other details to create
interesting and varied rooflines.
b. Avoid flat façades and create visual interest.
• Articulate bays and balconies.
• Utilize architectural articulation such as changes in material,
fenestration, architectural detailing, or other elements to break down
A
the scale. A
c. Where buildings are set back at upper stories, use lower roofs as green
roofs, balconies, terraces, and gardens.
A
a. Varied height and architectural A
elements create interesting roofline

A
B
C
B
B

C A
C B
b. Articulated bays and balconies C
help to avoid flat facades C A
B
B
B C
B C
C
B
C B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
c. Articulated materials, fenestration, and
architectural detailing break down the scale of
large buildings and create visual interest
d. Building setback and podium

rooftop can be used as a roof garden
e. Recessed or projected entr yways, bays, a. Varied height and architectural elements create interesting and varied roof lines.
canopies, awnings and other architectural
elements enhance the pedestrian experience. b. Articulated bays, fenestration, and architectural detailing help avoid flat facades.
c. Above level 2, any potential green roofs, balconies, terraces, or gardens, are tenant improvement work at tenant’s
option.
17
5.1.5 BUILT FORM
Tall Buildin g s 4. Built Form
TALL BUILDINGS
d. Tall Buildings
Goal: Buildings over 200 feet tall should be designed with particular attention to
the architectural character of the top of the building, which will be visible from
significant public spaces and from some distance. Tall buildings could potentially
enhance the identity of Kendall Square by defining edges or serving as landmarks.
Measures:
b3
b3 b2
a. During design, consider the variety of vantage points from which tall b3
buildings may be seen, especially from significant public spaces and nearby b3
b2 b3
low-scale residential neighborhoods. b

b
b. Tall buildings should be articulated to avoid a monolithic appearance, and b3
should emphasize slender, vertically-oriented proportions.

b2
b.1 • Emphasize corners using taller elements such as towers, turrets, and
bays.

b3
b.2 • Consider the use of at least two distinct finish materials and colors on
b3
b2
each building. b3
b3
b3
b.3 • Consider variation in forms that present different profiles to different

b3
vantage points, if appropriate. b2
b3
c. Avoid broad “slab” volumes that make the building appear bulky. Point
towers expressing vertical volumes are encouraged.
b3
d. Consider legibility of the building top both by day and night, while
demonstrating responsible use of lighting and energy consistent with
sustainability requirements.
b. Slender, vertically-oriented proportions.
b. 2 Use of at least two distinct finish materials and colors.
b. 3 Variation in forms present different profiles to different vantage points.
d. Lighting elements increase legibility of the building by day and night.

18

5.1.6 BUILT FORM
ROOFTOPS
Rooftops 4 . Bu ilt Form
Open-Air Screen Wall / Cooling Towers
Enclosed Mechanical Penthouse
f. Rooftops
Goal: The design of rootops, including mechanical equipment and cellular Screening used to conceal
rooftop mechanicals
installations, should be conceived as integral to the rest of the architecture of the Screening used to conceal
rooftop mechanicals
building.
Measures: Facade and screening

a. Rooftop mechanicals may be designed to stand out as machinery, in which are of the same idiom Facade and screening
case it needs to be carefully arranged to give a pleasing visual image. are of the same idiom
b. Screening may be used to conceal rooftop mechanicals, and in this case,
the screening should be in the same idiom as the rest of the architecture.

c. It may be possible to use both techniques listed above.
d. To the extent possible, provisions should be made so that future cellular
installations may be placed upon the building without detriment to the

architecture, e.g. a blank wall of a mechanical screen may be conceived as
such a location.
SOUTHWEST VIEW
The Biogen building in Kendall Square partially expresses

the mechanical equipment and partially screens it (Biogen,
Cambridge)
1. Screening used to conceal rooftop mechanicals is of the same idiom as the

rest of the architecture. No rooftop mechanical will be visible from the ground
level and will be screened from view.

23
5.2.1 GROUND FLOOR
RETAIL OR i MIXED-USE
Retail/M xed - u s e GROUND FLOORS 5 . Grou n d Floor D esig n Gui deli nes
5. Ground Floor Design Guidelines

a. Retail or Mixed-use Ground Floors
– Uses
Goal: First floors of the buildings should be actively used.
Measures:
a. Along Major Public Streets - Approximately 75 percent of the street frontage
should be occupied by retail uses such as cafes, restaurants and shops.
b. Along Secondary Streets - Approximately 75 percent of the street frontage
should be occupied by active uses. Active uses include:
• retail (i.e. cafes, restaurants, shops)
• educational and cultural venues
• services for the public or for commercial offices (fitness centers,
cafeterias open to the public, daycare centers, etc.)
• community spaces (exhibition or meeting space)
• art/information exhibition windows; live/work spaces
c. Lobbies for office, research and residential uses are discouraged from
occupying extensive ground floor frontage.

d. Carefully designed residential stoops and entries that meet ADA
requirements are encouraged.

Goal: Retail and services should serve local communities as well as people who
work in the area.
Measures: 44’
a. Leasing of space to small, locally-owned businesses is encouraged.
b. Diverse retail and service offerings that serve current and future Kendall 20%
Active Use
Square residents and surrounding neighborhoods (e.g. pharmacy,
greengrocer, bakery, drycleaner, and convenience store) are encouraged. MA
IN
ST
c. Building frontage devoted to bank, trust company or similar financial RE
ET
121’
institution should be limited to approximately 25 feet. Larger floor areas
can be devoted to bank uses when fronted with other active retail uses.
57%
Active Use
Goal: Where retail is not provided, ground floor spaces should be designed to
77%
accommodate retail in the future. Total Active
Use
Measures:
Standards for spaces convertible to retail include:
a. Adequate floor-to-floor height (e.g. 15-20 feet) to allow food-oriented
uses, with ventilation etc.
b. Leasable ground floor depth from façade should average about 40 feet
c. Ground floor level flush with or easily accessible from sidewalk
d. Ground floor façade readily convertible to retail-style storefront
e. Designed to accommodate venting and exhaust needs of food service uses
f. Services such as interior power and HVAC zoned or easily convertible to
enable convenient division and sublease of interior spaces to retail tenants.

24
5.2.2 GROUND FLOOR
SETBACKS
Retail/M i xed - u s e 5 . Grou n d Floor D esign Gui deli nes
– Setbacks
Goal: Create space at the sidewalk level to allow for interaction between
activities on the ground floor of the buildings and the public sidewalk.
Measures:
a. Ensure that the sidewalk includes ample space for walking, street
furniture, street trees, bicycle parking and other plantings, and is designed
to accommodate a high level of access for all users, including those in
wheelchairs or pushing strollers.
b. Provide a small setback (5 to 15 feet ) from the right-of-way for café

seating, benches or small open spaces.
Goal: Buildings should be directly engaging to the public and create a well-

defined streetwall to help frame Kendall Square’s streets and public spaces. 28’ - 10”
a
Measures: 18’ - 0”
a
a. Setbacks exceeding 10 feet should be provided with caution. 8’ - 10”
b. Setbacks used exclusively for ornamental landscaping are not encouraged. a
23’ - 8”
a
MA
IN
ST
10’ - 0”
RE
ET a
13’ - 6”
a
7’ - 8”
a
20’ - 0”
b
Good examples of adequate sidewalk width directly associated with ground floor a. Sidewalk includes ample space and is designed to accommodate a high level of access for all users, including those in
uses. (left: Tavern in the Square, right: Flour Bakery, Cambridge, MA) wheelchairs or pushing strollers.
b. Architecture provides a small setback from the right-of-way for cafe seating, benches and small open spaces.

Retail/M i xed - u se 5. G ro u n d F l o o r D es ig n Gu i d eli nes
5.2.3 GROUND FLOOR

FACADES
– Façades
Goal: Design ground floor façades of building to reduce the distinction between
exterior and interior space to extend the effective public realm indoors and reveal
indoor activity on the street.
Measures:
a. Transparent materials and interior lighting should be used to maximize
visibility of street level uses. Transparency is most important in the portion
of the facade between about 2 feet to about 10 feet above the sidewalk
level, i.e. where people are likely to look in. Incorporate 60 to 75 percent
transparent glazing in the ground level façade along major public streets d
and 40 to 60 percent transparent glazing in the ground level façade along
b
secondary streets.
b. Active ground level spaces should have strong, interactive connections d
with adjacent public sidewalk/plaza space using strategies such as a
extensive transparent glazing, interactive media or public art, large d
operable doors and windows, or associated outdoor seating. d
c. Blank walls exceeding 20 feet in length should be avoided. d b a
b

d. Awnings and canopies are encouraged to provide shelter and enliven
a
ground floor facade.
a
e. Mechanical/utility rooms and service/loading areas are not appropriate
along the major streets and should be located on secondary streets.

THIS AREA PENDING
MBTA APPROVAL
b. Effective strategies include combining highly transparent facades with prominent interior media (left:
Apple store, Back Bay, Boston), installing large operable windows connecting indoor and outdoor (middle:
Dwelltime, Cambridge) and outdoor seating (right: Lafayette Square, Cambridge).
a. Transparent materials used to maximize visibility of street level uses.

b. Large operable doors and windows or associated outdoor seating.
c. No blank walls exceeding 20 feet.
d. Awnings and canopies provide shelter and enliven ground floor facade.
26 e. No mechanical/utility rooms or service/loading areas located along major street.

5.2.4 GROUND FLOOR
ENTRANCES
Retail/M i xed - u s e 5 . Grou n d Floor D esign Gui deli nes
– Entrances
Goal: Major entrances should be located on public streets, and on corners
wherever possible. If appropriate, entrances should relate to crosswalks and 
pathways that lead to bus stops, transit and bike stations.

KENDALL PLAZA,
ENTRANCE

LEVEL 2 TERRACE,
AND KENDALL SQUARE
ROOFTOP GARDEN

POSSIBLE
ENTRANCE

RETAIL
ACTIVE USE/
PUBLIC LOBBY

PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
LOBBY
355 MAIN STREET


FCC

PUBLIC ACCESS TO
LEVEL 2 TERRACE
POSSIBLE
ENTRANCE

MAIN STREET

5.3.1 PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
BR
OA
DW
AY
T
4CC
S
ES
AM
Goal: Provide new or improved pedestrian connections.
Measures:
Existing
PROTO
a. Kendall Plaza to Broadway
Existing Conditions
MARRIOTT
b. Kendall Plaza to MIT
GREEN GARAGE a
c. Kendall Plaza to Public Lobby/Kendall Squre Rooftop Garden
d. Kendall Plaza to Pioneer Way to Ames Street d e E
f D
e. Pioneer Way to Kendall Square Rooftop Garden
3CC
Existing to be Improved 1CC
AMDesign Guidelines from CDD Memo

5CC g KENDALL

f. Kendall Plaza to Pioneeer Way through 325 Main PLAZA

g. Main Street to Pioneer Way/Kendall Square Rooftop Garden 

c
New b
MAIN ST
h. Kendall Plaza to new Level 2 Public Terrace
i. Kendall Plaza to Kendall Square Rooftop Garden
BR
OA
DW
AY
ST
4CC
ES
Additional
PROTO
MARRIOTT
GREEN GARAGE a
d e E
i D
3CC
f
5CC 1CC
g
KENDALL

h PLAZA


c
b
MAIN ST

5.3.2 PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
VISUAL AND FUNCTIONAL DESIGN INTENT 
 

Goal: Provide pedestrian connections that are perceived as public amenities. e


Measures: c
b
a. Visible and welcoming public connection from Main Street to Pioneer Way f
c
b. Active Retail street frontage with multiple entrances where feasible
2nd Floor
c. Public seating and programming adjacent to retail spaces and public circulation b

f
d. Level 2 Retail visible from inside Public Lobby where feasible to activate interior space
e. Level 2 Terrace and Retail accessible from inside the building and Kendall Plaza
f. Potential operable storefront to allow for an indoor/outdoor connection
f
d b e
Additional Design Guidelines from CDD Memo


MBTA HEADHOUSE
ROOF DESIGN AND
REDUNDANT ELEVATOR

e b
b
b
Ground Floor
b
c

b 
c
e
e
b


a
f b b f

5.4.1 PUBLIC SPACES
DEFINITION, ACTIVATION, AND INTERCONNECTION
Goal: Prioritize the definition, activation, and interconnection of public spaces by way of built form, building
programming, landscape design and programming, and the design of circulation systems.
Measures:
a. Provide a new physical connection from the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden to Kendall Plaza
b. Activate Kendall Plaza with adjacent retail frontage
c. Articulate building massing above Kendall Plaza to define and activate the public space
d. Retail and active use frontage along Main Street to engage pedestrians
l
e. Step back facade at Public Lobby entrance to mark public access into interior space
g. Locate Retail on Level 2 to add public activity above Kendall Plaza i
a
h. Create exterior public terrace above Kendall Plaza, Visiually connected to Kendall Plaza and
Additional Design Guidelines from CDD Memo

Kendall Square Roof Garden
i. New public elevators to access Level 2 terrace and Rooftop Garden e
j. Stairs to Level 2 terrace to provide places for seating along circulation route
c k

k. Level 2 terrace to the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden stairs to be open to the sky
l. Increased public programming to activate Kendall Square Rooftop Garden
g h
d
i b
j
THIS AREA PENDING

MBTA APPROVAL

6. RETAIL & ACTIVE USE
6.1 PRECEDENT IMAGES
RETAIL AND ACTIVE USE VISION

325 Main Street will contain approximately 42,300 GFA of retail, the majority of
which will be located on the ground and second floors and some of which may
be located one level below grade. The space could be subdivided in a variety of
ways and one or more two-story retailers may be possible. The frontage along both
Main Street and Kendall Plaza will be activated and offer opportunities for multiple
retail entrances as well as retailers of varying size and type. Given the proximity
to Kendall Plaza and the new second level terrace connecting Kendall Plaza to
the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden, the use of outdoor seating and/or operable
walls may be viable during warmer months. An existing pedestrian easement from
Kendall Plaza to Pioneer Way will be maintained at the ground floor. Its present
form follows a straight path along the northern edge of the parcel, but the form
of the easement could be reimagined if the retail programming follows a more
“market-like” permeable model increasingly seen in urban areas. The Applicant
has experience managing similar conditions in places like the Prudential Center,
where public passage is maintained even when retail kiosks and inline and anchor
retailers are closed. As the retail uses become more clearly defined, the Applicant
will work with the City and the CRA to define appropriate easement parameters,
including access locations and operational hours.
Potential retail uses could include restaurants, including fast casual dining options,
entertainment/sporting venues and/or bars, consumer service retail and dry goods,
as well as collaboration spaces such as art galleries that double as coffee shops.
The MIT COOP will also return at a reduced size. While the exact mix of retailers and
uses is yet to be determined, the Applicant is targeting a diverse mix of retailers
that will create activation in Kendall Square during both days and evenings as well
as weekdays and weekends. The Applicant will meet with the CRA and the City’s
Economic Development Department regularly to discuss retail opportunities.
In addition to retailers, the Applicant will provide and operate two single-unit public
restrooms on the ground level, accessible from the building exterior as well as
from the interior. In this way, the restrooms provide a public benefit to visitors to the
Kendall Plaz a as well as the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden.
As described in Chapter 1, the existing through-block connector from Main Street

to Pioneer Way and the Green Garage, will become a double height space, with
second level retail storefront visible and potentially accessible from within the
through-block connector. This area serves as a form of active public lobby, with
abutting retailers spilling into it while allowing public passage through it to the Green
Garage and the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden, in addition to providing access
to the 355 and 325 Main Street buildings. In response to comments received, the
Applicant will provide free WiFi within the Main Street to Pioneer Way through-
block connector as a public amenity and in order to encourage public use of the
space. Additionally, this space could serve as a zone to publicize the public art or
programming on the Kendall Square Rooftop Garden as discussed in Chapter 2.
Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter and CDD Staff Letter



6.2 PUBLIC LOBBY AND RESTROOM 
 

MEP PUBLIC ELEVATOR TO

KENDALL PLAZA,
LEVEL 2 TERRACE,

AND KENDALL SQUARE
ROOFTOP GARDEN
POTENTIAL
PUBLIC/RETAIL PROGRAMMING
TERRACE ZONE
SERV.

OPEN TO ELEC. RETAIL
BELOW

POTENTIAL MBTA HEADHOUSE

OUTDOOR SEATING ROOF DESIGN AND
REDUNDANT ELEVATOR
LEVEL 2


KENDALL PLAZA,
AND KENDALL SQUARE
ROOFTOP GARDEN
POSSIBLE
ENTRANCE

RETAIL
PUBLIC LOBBY ACTIVE USE/

PUBLIC LOBBY
WIFI ZONE

PUBLIC
RESTROOMS
LOBBY
355 MAIN STREET


FCC

PUBLIC ACCESS TO
LEVEL 2 TERRACE
POSSIBLE
ENTRANCE

MAIN STREET
PUBLIC LEVEL 1
RESTROOM


325 Main Schematic Design Review Resubmission - 01252019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

325 Main Schematic Design Review Resubmission - 01252019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

325 MAIN STREET

Design Review Resubmission

1. CORE & SHELL 4. SUSTAINABILITY

3.1 Pedestrian Wind Assessment

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT TEAM

REVISED BUILDING GFA

Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter Elevator Consultant

Sustainable Design Consultant

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

AREA AREA SUBTRACTED

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

14’9” FLOOR TO FLOOR 13’9” FLOOR TO FLOOR

SITE PROPERTY LINE 190’-0” SITE PROPERTY LINE

LEVEL 13 20’-6” LEVEL 13 18’-0”

SEPTEMBER 06 2018 DECEMBER 04 2018

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

Level 12 - 27K GFA Office Level 12 - 23.5K GFA Office

Level 7 - 26K GFA Office Level 7 - 24K GFA Office

SEPTEMBER 06 2018 DECEMBER 04 2018

BUILDING PULLS AWAY

ROOF/ POTENTIAL TENANT

NOVEMBER 02 2018 DECEMBER 04 2018

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

GASKET REFINEMENT 1 GASKET REFINEMENT 2

GASKET REFINEMENT 3 GASKET REFINEMENT 4

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

CRA/CITY PROPOERTY LINE

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

CRA/CITY PROPOERTY LINE

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

THIS AREA PENDING

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

Comment Reference: CDD Staff Letter

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

VIEW FROM NORTHWEST

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter

EXISTING 5CC EXISTING 3CC

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

49’ ROOFTOP GARDEN 1CC

3CC KENDALL PLAZA

325 MAIN PICKAR D CH I LTON

Comment Reference: CRA Staff Letter, CDD Staff Letter