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

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

Folks: -- This is Boston after all non Vegas where a building is old in two decades

However, even in Boston -- and not just recently ? change happens and old get buried under the new ? latest fads in architecture get replaced by even later latest fads.

For example:
1) They tore down the Museum of Fine Arts in Copley Square to build the Fairmont Copley Plaza -- a lot of folks certainly didn't like that at the time (built circa 11880 demolished circa 1910)
2) They tore down MIT to make way for a Life Insurance Building (near to the edge of the Public Garden, built circa 1870 demolished circa 1930?s?)
3) They tore down Mechanics Hall to make way for parts of the Prudential
4) Then they tore down Travelers to make way for 125 High Street

Given as "someone pointed-out" (can't remember the source) that most preservation is a combination of neglect (when the city is in economic doldrums as Boston was in the 1940's and 1950's) and accident (nice little building hidden behind a large building until the large building is taken down) -- you should expect to have losses from time-to-time

What you hope for is that the owners of the site after the demolition -- build something that if not improves on is at least is no worse (from the street-view aesthetic perspective). Obviously the new construction is expected to be up-to-date in terms of construction materials and process and will certainly feature modern amenities -- the real question is how will it eventually fit into the overall local fabric.


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

whighlander said:
the real question is how will it eventually fit into the overall local fabric.
Click to expand...

You can already answer this question from looking at the renderings.

The answers is obvious: "Not nearly as well as what is there now". This is the problem.

It very rare on this forum for the majority of members to be against a new development in this city.
This is one of the few times that has happened. That must tell you something.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Has anyone received the BRA's scoping document?

I just got it a few minutes ago -- they've put together some sort of intermediate document on the Arlington Building -- but it isn't opening properly on my computer.

From what I did see, it looks like the concern of many residents was weighing heavily on the BRA, and there seemed to be language to the effect of getting more community feedback.

However, my Adobe Reader was flipping out so I could only see bits and pieces of text... can anyone confirm that they're still on the fence and are looking for more feedback? If so, THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO MAKE SOME UNHOLY NOISE!!!!!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I also received the BRA scoping document on this project. It is a large PDF file containing copies of all public input received and the BRA's summary of public concern. I do not know how or if I can attach the PDF to this post. If it is possible, can someone let me know and I will attach the PDF file.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I also received a copy of the 156 page document in PDF format. It is 9 MB large but I'll try to attach it.
Sorry but I find attaching anything to this forum a challenge. The document contained many letters from businesses, organizations and citizens. It's about 50/50 for and against. There was considerable criticism (even from supporters) of the buildings cold uninspired design, which I find hopeful. Jay Rourke, the Senior Project Manager at the BRA is asking for further comment. He said to feel free to call him at 617-918-4317.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Hey guys,

I've read through the scoping document. There are possibly suspicion-arousing irregularities involved in the process, which I'll get to in a minute. Going from start to back the highlights are:

1) The document basically sums up the project and details what additional info Druker & his cohorts have to present in the Draft Project Impact Report (not specified when that's due). Basically, they want more studies, more renderings, and they have a number of historical, aesthetic and urban planning concerns -- very similar to us. At least some people in the BRA actually seem to think as many of us do about this site, and we need to show our support for the site by to continuing demand Shreve's stay put.

2) Here's the gist of the BRA's dilemma: The Arlington Building is nice, but is Pelli's design equally good?

"Should the Arlington Building be preserved or should the owner be allowed to redevelop in a way that is allowed under the current zoning? ... The BRA would like to hear more. It is understood that the Arlington Building was not granted landmark status in 2006 but still it is an esthetically pleasing building and enjoyed by many."

3) The BRA is very aware of the artistry and detail of the Shreve's and WEIU buildings and of the lack of it in the Pelli design.

4) The BRA notes that, insofar as Shreve's, the WEIU and the other buildings are in the Back Bay National Register of Historic Places site, they are a state and national historic place. Do not let them forget this.

4) The BRA is also worried that the Pelli design is lacking for the site: "The building does not distinguish itself as a strong presence at such an important site."

The Province St. side is seen as especially crappy.

5) Cheap materials are another worry. There's a transcript of a committee hearing with Druker and Pelli. The BRA expresses concern that well-made, high-quality materials be used to withstand the Boston winters, adding, "I hope you use real limestone, not pre-cast limestone." Pelli responds, "We're using our own pre-caster." Oops!

6) Other concerns voiced by the BRA and other city agencies that submitted their own reviews:
-the building must comply with Article 85 and pass muster with the Boston Landmarks Commission (WRITE THEM!!!) as not creating an adverse impact on surrounding historic buildings (as if Shreve's isn't historic)
-preservation is a greener alternative, and the city supports LEED building
-the city is seeking to limit the number of cars that enter the city each day, yet one of the biggest moneymakers on this project is its garage
-the garage could threaten groundwater levels at surrounding buildings

7) Now for the intrigue:

Of the public's comments, 33 were for Druker's lemon, 25 against, and 1 was neither for nor against.

Of the nays, all were independently written and from people who seemed to represent a wide range of neighbors, students, businesspeople and lawyers.

Of the 33 yeas:

a) 20 were form letters. There were 5 different templates, one of which (allegedly by neighbors) oddly cited the truck-loading features of Druker's lemon as the No. 1 reason to support it. (All the form letters mentioned Druker prominently and frequently as a great person.)

Some had January XX written as the date, some were allegedly by VPs of real estate firms but included lines like, "Back Bay business owners like myself...," and others talked about the high-quality materials.

b) 18 were from either developers or hoteliers. Many of these were clearly by friends, as they cited what a great guy Druker is as the main reason the project should be built.

c) Only 5 letters were neither form letters nor sent by a developer/hotel. Of those 5, two of them were from organizations that say Druker donates to them generously (Back Bay Association and Arlington St. Church's lawyer)

There's NO community support for this thing. We need to mobilize, get the neighborhood involved, get the media involved, etc. etc.

Shreve's can be saved. Boston can retain its charm. And we can all still tell people we're from the US's most European city. But we have to fight for that right. WE need to make sure the worst-case scenario is a facadectomy with a "mechanized penthouse" (apparently the main draw of the project; I have no idea what it means) on top.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

ArchBoston being used to block a new development? It's a world gone mad!
ArchBoston turns NIMBY!

I guess it just go to show not all NIMBYs are wrong.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The Province St. side is seen as especially crappy.
Click to expand...

But keep in mind that Providence Street here is little more than an alley. Almost nobody walks or drives on it, and the existing building facades on that street are nothing to write home about either.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Exactly. But the BRA and Marty and others seem to want to change that... They were worried that Druker's slice of Waltham would condemn Province to another 50 years of marginalization, and they seemed to think the street should be improved upon.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I would be surprised if Pelli has even seen the designs. He's nnot going to dirty his hands on an office park building. He probably just signs the blueprints when they're done.

Why does ever successful architect become a whore? Phillip Johnson even referred to himself as a whore in regards to International Place.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Providence Street, not Province. I don't see any value in trying to improve this street, as it will always be the back door and loading area of the Park Square building as well as for whatever is on the south side of Boylston Street. It's really no different than the Public Alleys behind the other east-west Back Bay streets.

Pedestrians walk on St. James or on Boylston -- not here.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Providence St. is a pit and serves as a service alley for 31 St. James Ave on one side, and the retailers fronting Boylston on the other. It is also a lively flesh market at certain times of day.
The biggest blight on Providence St. are the dilapidated buildings in the middle of the block next to the Rattlesnake(?) (I forget, the one with the upstairs deck and cold Coronas). From the Boylston side these buildings look shabby, but intact. From the Providence St. side, you can see them for the mere shells that they are.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Why does ever successful architect become a whore? Phillip Johnson even referred to himself as a whore in regards to International Place.
Click to expand...

....and Gehry has just been outed as a whore for his continued participation in the Atlantic Yards clusterfuck (which sounds a lot like Boston's Station situation):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/arts/design/21atla.html?ref=artsNorth
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

From the Boylston side these buildings look shabby, but intact. From the Providence St. side, you can see them for the mere shells that they are.

If the BRA and the Mayor want to clean up Providence St. what better way to do it than start from a clean slate. In their minds, tear down what's there and build new. I've seen the pics of that block on here and walked that length of street and other than the Shreve building, the other stuff could go. Considering that buildable land in or near the financial district is already rare and that the North End, Back Bay, South End and Beacon Hill are already off limits, the Shreve building (not a historical jewel) becomes expendable. If the new building is as attractive as Heritage on the Garden I won't mind seeing the Shreve building replaced.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Why does Providence Street need to become anything more than a service alley? Nobody says that the pubilc alley between Marlboro and Beacon streets needs to have attractive facades.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

It's because of its name. Change it to Public Alley 235 and the commotion will all but die out.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Or change its name to Springfield St.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

We already have one in the South End. (Bad enough the city has five Washington Streets....)
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Itchy, I think many on this site are in favor for preservation, I am one of those that are strongly against tearing this building down. Could I nominate you as the "leader" for archboston's fight against this project? I will avail myself in any way. I think it would help to have an organized effort.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I uploaded the scoping determination to the site. Anyone that would like to read the full report can download it through the following link:

350 Boylston Street Scoping Determination


Thanks to mpm617 for the file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top