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

Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

mpm617 said:
He's frugal in all the wrong places. He may think that keeping property taxes low will prevent people from leaving the city but it's the quality of life issues that he totally ignores that drive people away.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I lived in Allston for three years before recently moving to Somerville. The pride that the city government takes in doing the basic things is night and day. Streets and sidewalks are clean and much better paved than Boston. Graffiti is dealt with promptly. Trees are protected like gold, and more trees are being added. Mayor Curtatone has a vision for a better Somerville, one which he continues to act upon: making the city better for walking and biking, improving the business districts such as Union Square through higher density zoning and other planning efforts, pushing for the Green Line extension and Community Path, rehabilitating parks, etc. Does Mayor Menino have a similar vision?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

itchy said:
The Neighbors Association of the Back Bay, which has its priorities so "straightened out" in opposing a high-rise in the middle of the Pru, says they regret what's going on here but that it's legal.
Click to expand...

Still, Druker needed a special exception to get his 130 ft height. There is special zoning governing this specific block of Boylston capping the height of any building at 85 ft. Presumably, this zoning was put in place to protect both the Arlington Street church and Public Garden from being overwhelmed by hulking, out-of-scale development -- in other words, exactly this type of proposal.

There was a special exception written into the zoning that grants a height of 130 ft, only to be granted after a public design review. In this particular case, however, it seems granting such an exception completely violates the spirit and purpose of the existing zoning. I seriously doubt it was intended to allow megalithic development like Druker's proposal.

Here is some of the pertinent zoning (all of which can downloaded from the BRA's website):

This is the zoning relating to the height of the district (B-8-120c):

SECTION 16-6.
Height of Structures within One Hundred Feet of Certain Streets that Bound Boston Common or the Public Garden. Any building or portion thereof within one hundred feet of the nearest street line of any street described below shall not exceed the height specified for such street as follows:
...
b. South side of Boylston Street from the westerly sideline of Arlington Street to a point 100 feet west of Arlington Street, to a depth of 50 feet from Boylston Street: 85 feet maximum height; beyond said depth of 50 feet: 130 feet maximum height; except that such requirement in a B-8-120c district shall be subject to the provisions of Article 6A.
...



Here is the section of 6A that specifies what conditions need to be met for approval to the exception:

SECTION 6A-3.
Conditions Required for Approval. The Board of Appeal shall allow an exception only if it finds:
(a) That such exception is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this code;
(b) The exception requested is in conformity with one or more of the following, as applicable: (I) the development plan for the planned development area or (ii) the land assembly and redevelopment or urban renewal plan, or the low rent housing project or housing project for elderly persons of low income for the urban renewal area, or (iii) the plan adopted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority for the downtown district involved, or for the Harborpark District, and such conformity has been certified to by the Boston Redevelopment Authority; or if the exception relates to a setback of parapet requirement in a B-6-90a, B-6-90b, B-8-120a, or B-8-120c district, the Boston Redevelopment Authority has certified to the Board of Appeal that the proposed project has been subject to design review; or if the exception relates to the requirement of Section 25-5.8 concerning the location of a structure in a high hazard coastal (V zone) district, the project has received a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
(c) if such appeal relates to a Development Impact Project, as defined in Section 80B-7, the applicant shall have complied with the Development Impact Project Exaction requirements set forth in Section 80B-7.3; and
...

It also states:

SECTION 6A-1.
...the Board of Appeal may, in a specific case after public notice and hearing, allow an exception from the provisions of this code...
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Off Topic:

I have always been rather a Menino agnostic. Never really liked the guy, but never had anything against him either.
Until now.
This library thing has really started to push me into itchy's corner. It's time for him to go.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I have nothing against Menino, but I'm starting to wonder what it would be like with someone else in there these days.... could someone else be doing a better job? just curious, I say one term w/o him and if they suck, bring the stumblin mumblin rumblin Menino.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The library thing and the Druker thing make Menino look bad. But he is fighting for a 1000+ footer though and he is a big reason why 111 Huntington almost won the Emporis best skyscraper award that year. But if we're talking about politics, I cannot comment accurately as I am not actually a resident of Boston.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Do any of you have any idea who would make a good alternative to Menino?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

ablarc
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Being a Roslindale homeowner from 1998 to 2005 I feel like I can say a few things about Menino. Although, I do not support Druker's proposals for the Shreve, Crump and Low parcels, I am not sure how much Menino has to do with the seemingly lack of neighborhood opposition. If the neigborhood were in an uproar it perhaps would sway him politically. My impression is he generally favors development for the sake of increased tax revenue and economic development.

Also, when Menino became mayor he was viewed as a friend of historic preservation, largely because of the Boston Main Streets program which made and continues to make significant improvements in neighborhood business districts throughout Boston. This program was Menino's "baby" and has really thrived during his term as mayor.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The only other real historic-preservation controversy I can recall during Menino's long reign was the Gaiety Theatre. Chinatown was divided on this subject, with some residents supporting preservation while others supported demolition and redevelopment. (But I suspect nobody wanted what has actually happened -- demolition followed by lack of development.)

Balanced against this is Menino's making sure that the Paramount, Opera House, and Modern Theatre all remained standing until developers stepped forward to renovate and reopen them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I'm for a change...but of the current roll of potential candidates (Flaherty, Tobin, Ralph Martin) I think Ralph Martin is the only impressive, authentic one in the bunch. I've been to small/intimate fund raisers for all three and while Tobin and Flaherty seem like decent enough guys they also feel like they came stamped out of a factory somewhere in the middle of China.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I just don't understand this situation.

I went on an architectural walking tour of the Back Bay last weekend through the Boston Center for Adult Education. Edward Gordon was the lecturer. He was very good and thoroughly knowledgeable of the neighborhood.

I asked about the Shreve building, as he is an historic preservation consultant and has worked with many of the associations in Boston. He described the building as a "pastiche of different styles" and basically said that it was unremarkable and not worth saving..Although when I asked about the Dainty Dot building, I think I touched a nerve - suddenly the claws came out and he defended this building with ferocity. Even though Dainty Dot's bare-ass blank wall abuts the Greenway, and the current proposal saves the facade on Essex St, and adds density to a part of the city that can handle it.

The Shreve building may not be an exemplary example of architecture, however, the craftsmanship, ornamentation and massing of the structure all fit into the context of Boylston Street very nicely. Transport Shreve to let's say Tampa, and the building would be a landmark. The blase proposal to replace Shreve, in my opinion, does not warrant it's demise.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

This is clearly a fight for urbanists who view this and the other buildings in context, and not one for narrow-minded architectural "experts" who have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

And it may be a fight for which historic preservation laws are ill-suited. It's hard to rebut claims that buildings are not (sufficiently) historically significant because they have been extensively altered, or because they have had a long list of unrelated occupants.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I recently took three out of town friends on a tour of Boston and I pointed out the Shreve building as we were passing by and noted the plans that had been announced. All three work either as project managers for development firms or head their own shop, and all three were equally dismayed. When you create a gang of Nimbys out of a car full of developers you know something is amiss.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^^^Under LeTaureau, regarding Ed Gordon's remarks...I can't help but think there is another side to this issue: reverse class prejudice. The Shreve's building represents the quintessence of the Boston ruling class, one of the oldest (or the oldest?) jewelry stores in America. Dainty Dot represents the working class who labored in sweat shops to clothe the upper classes. It's become chic as of late to champion the latter at the expense of the former to compensate for past injustices. I wonder if that's what's operating here.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I think the Shreve's building would be more highly regarded (by historic preservation folks) if Shreve's had occupied it from the beginning, or if they were still occupying it today.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

There would be less of a problem if the replacement was worthy. We are talking about trading what is there now for that sketch? In any trade, shouldn't the goal of any trader be the securing of something of equal or superior value? Ah, but foolish me, I am talking about aesthetics, not commerce, and we board members aren't sitting at the table. Pity.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^To your point, I should also add a few other comments by Ed Gordon. Regarding Dainty Dot, he launched into a diatribe and railed against the height of the proposal, siting how inappropriate it was and how it was insensitive to the Chinatown neighborhood. I mentioned that SSgA's headquarters, a 500' building was right across the street, and a major transportation hub was also right across the street. I stated my opinion that it was an ideal site for height and density. He was just searching for a reason to preserve the non-functioning, truncated structure as is.

Shreve is a perfectly functional building as is. Very little needs to be done to convert it to office space, retail or even chic condos. wtf! Let's say that the proposal to replace Shreve included a 20 story tower in it's place. Then we'd see the preservationists storming the Bastille.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

tobyjug said:
There would be less of a problem if the replacement was worthy. We are talking about trading what is there now for that sketch? In any trade, shouldn't the goal of any trader be the securing of something of equal or superior value? Ah, but foolish me, I am talking about aesthetics, not commerce, and we board members aren't sitting at the table. Pity.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that a really major problem with the Drucker proposal is that it is hideously wrong for the location. It is not like there are may more locations for development that overlook the Public Garden -- Drucker should be ashamed of the proposal.

I happen to be a Chinatown resident, and the comparisons to the Dainty Dot redevelopment and historical significance are baffling to me. I think the proposal for the Daity Dot is perfectly appropriate for the edge of the Financial District -- and certainly beats the hacked off wall that is there now (and has been there for YEARS!). The Dainty Dot proposal fits the transition location context very well.

One side comment -- I agree that Menino has held out for several of the downtown theaters to be redeveloped, and has pulled off the Opera House, with the Paramount and Modern in process. However, the former Gaiety Theater site is a empty lot -- no development in sight. The Kensington proposal appears dead due to financing woes. Shouldn't developer have to post a guarantee of some type BEFORE tearing down a historically significant site. Now we have neither a new development nor an old theater to rehab. The empty lot is the worst possible outcome, and Menino and the BRA do nothing to prevent this.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

JeffDowntown said:
Shouldn't developer have to post a guarantee of some type BEFORE tearing down a historically significant site. Now we have neither a new development nor an old theater to rehab. The empty lot is the worst possible outcome, and Menino and the BRA do nothing to prevent this.
Click to expand...

The Boston Landmarks Commission used to require assurances of financing from developers before allowing ISD to issue demolition permits... but the Mayor's office has control of both the BRA and the BLC, so the projects the Mayor likes get permitted.

The lot would make a lovely parking lot like the one down the street at Hayward Place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top