Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment | 334-364 Boylston Street | Back Bay

I used to work in one of those buildings, but haven't been by there in over a year. Even though I knew this was happening, I'm still so disappointed to see it. They couldn't have kept the corner facades, and just replaced the other structures? Like, that or designed something beautiful and to scale? Frustrating.
 
Blackbird said:
Why are we posting pictures of Washington DC in an ArchBoston thread? :unsure: :censored:
Click to expand...
OPM Headquaters in DC was the inspiration!

1740602153905.jpeg
 
Blackbird said:
Why are we posting pictures of Washington DC in an ArchBoston thread? :unsure: :censored:
Click to expand...

This is the Washington DC counterpart: the Wilbur Wright building. Constructed in 1963-64, clad in white marble, and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2024. See architectural particulars on the link below. This was originally Federal Office Building 10B, but subsequently renamed.. I believe it was listed in the National Register because it was the headquarters for NASA's Office of Manned Space Flight during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. NASA later moved out to its own (and non-descript) headquarters building.

https://historicsites.dcpreservation.org/items/show/1298?tour=85&index=9

Below, Google Streetview, northwest corner. There are other images in the above link, including an interior image of an office suite.

jQUumHS.png


Below, Google Streetview, south façade

Hz9b3ZK.png
 
stellarfun said:
This is the Washington DC counterpart: the Wilbur Wright building. Constructed in 1963-64, clad in white marble, and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2024. See architectural particulars on the link below.

1740960404607.png
Click to expand...
For the location and context that building is in, it is perfect. I actually like it quite a bit. It's kind of a combination of two looks: a bit of the old industrial look (the flat façade and multi-paned windows), and also a bit of the 1960s urban renewal/office park look.
It's far superior to the Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment; more classic looking, understated, and easier on the eyes.
 
Charlie_mta said:
For the location and context that building is in, it is perfect. I actually like it quite a bit. It's kind of a combination of two looks: a bit of the old industrial look (the flat façade and multi-paned windows), and also a bit of the 1960s urban renewal/office park look.
It's far superior to the Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment; more classic looking, understated, and easier on the eyes.
Click to expand...
Designs for Federal buildings along the National Mall are guided by a Federal agency, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts.

The chair of the Commission at the time that the designs for the paired buildings, FOB 10A and 10B (the Wilbur Wright building) were approved was David Finley. From Wiki's biography of Finley,
David Finley was appointed to the United States Commission of Fine Arts by President Roosevelt in 1943 and served as its chairman from 1950 to 1963. Under his leadership, the Commission took a leading advisory role in many projects in monumental Washington, such as saving of the Old Patent Office Building in 1956, preserving Lafayette Square in 1962 and heading off many ill-advised projects such as the original “tombstone” design of the FDR memorial in 1963. Finley's dual roles as chairman of the Fine Arts Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation gave him access to Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy and Finley formed a powerful team for the promotion of good taste in monumental Washington and the White House and they became close personal friends.
Click to expand...
Very interesting biography. He was a lawyer, and had no training as an architect, or designer. I guess you could say he acquired his reputation for good taste. Full biography link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._Finley_Jr.

The Old Patent Office Building is now the Smithsonian Museum of American Art and the National Portrait Gallery. Boston does not have a counterpart of the Commission of Fine Arts. In a lesser sense, as its jurisdiction is much more limited, the Presidio Trust in San Francisco is somewhat comparable.
 
Charlie_mta said:
For the location and context that building is in, it is perfect. I actually like it quite a bit. It's kind of a combination of two looks: a bit of the old industrial look (the flat façade and multi-paned windows), and also a bit of the 1960s urban renewal/office park look.
It's far superior to the Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment; more classic looking, understated, and easier on the eyes.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with this at all, but I am certain that a building with this design in the location of the Shreve redevelopment would be far worse than the building we got, regardless of the merits of the new building. It would have been far heavier looking and feel oppressive. As for me, I don't love the new building, but I don't hate it either. In time, as tenants move in and memories of what it replaced fade, it will be just fine.
 
stellarfun said:
This is the Washington DC counterpart: the Wilbur Wright building.

jQUumHS.png


Below, Google Streetview, south façade

Hz9b3ZK.png
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the low-rise portion of the JFK building at Government Center. I agree with dirtywater above that this DC building would look even worse here than what we ended up with. Neither building sets the bar particularly high.
 
I saw the building in person on Friday afternoon. Maybe because it was a bright sunny day, but I think the building looks fine. It doesn't look cheap to me in person. It looks like it fits in well with the rest of the surrounding buildings. I would probably not have noticed it if I hadn't seen all the whining here. That's okay; it doesn't jump out at you. It doesn't have to.
 
What. The Actual. F. Btw anyone here connected to Boston Preservation Alliance? Seems to me they have failed bigly with several recent advocacy projects, ie Kenmore/Whoop, site which is now Raffles, the abomination this thread is about, Bromfield/Payless, Northern Avenue Bridge being demolished and soon to be Buckminster? I mean what is up with them...
 
JS38 said:
I mean what is up with them...
Click to expand...

They're a nonprofit organization. Which means they're paying nonprofit salaries in a metro area with an insanely high cost-of-living. They have zero regulatory power. They operate in an extremely complex and complicated big-city political environment with numerous powerful competing/conflicting stakeholders and interests.

Oh, and on top of that, their prior director went absolutely thermonuclear, "I'm shooting my way out of town," on Mayor Wu, just a year ago:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/20/metro/wu-rezoning-politics-boston-real-estate/

“The tides have turned a little bit away from Wu, because she’s not living up to the expectations created in her campaign,” said Alison Frazee, executive director of the Boston Preservation Alliance, who supported Wu in her first election but said she wouldn’t vote for the mayor again if the election were held today. “We give our feedback, and it’s completely ignored.”

So now they have an interim ED, stuck with the reality that, in a town were the Mayor is a de facto emperor, they're probably going to be in the doghouse for a long long time given the shockingly tactless public statements of their prior leadership.

In other words... maybe cut them a little slack? (Or, apply to become their next ED...)
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Czervik.Construction said:
I saw the building in person on Friday afternoon. Maybe because it was a bright sunny day, but I think the building looks fine. It doesn't look cheap to me in person. It looks like it fits in well with the rest of the surrounding buildings. I would probably not have noticed it if I hadn't seen all the whining here. That's okay; it doesn't jump out at you. It doesn't have to.
Click to expand...

I saw the building in person on Friday afternoon. Maybe because it was a bright sunny day, but I think the building looks fine. It doesn't look cheap to me in person. It looks like it fits in well with the rest of the surrounding buildings. I would probably not have noticed it if I hadn't seen all the whining here. That's okay; it doesn't jump out at you. It doesn't have to.
Click to expand...
“It doesn’t jump out at you. It doesn’t have to”

Not every building needs to jump out, but this one should. Once it was clear the original building would not be saved it should have been pushed on the developer that serious thought needs to be put into the design of the new building.

In a vacuum, this building is fine…in context of the prominence of its location, I think it’s terrible.
 
I can't get over how poor the choice of stone here is. It's too light, neutral, and devoid of variations so that the weathering takes the dominant texture. It looks like all the horizontal pieces already have streaks from moisture runoff. Will always look like it needs a powerwash.
 
At this location, and given what it replaced, this development is straight-up shit. Anyone apologizing for it or pretending to like it is high or stupid. I walk by this every weekday. This building sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top