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

[itchy]

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

Someone did question why it was so difficult to save a facade when an underground parking facility was going to be consructed. I do not recall a response to that question.

I asked that question toward the end. It was not answered, nor did any member of Druker's team look at me when I asked it. I understand that Druker wants to develop his properties. Nobody forced him to buy these, so I don't know why his people made it sound like it's a great burden to own them, but now that he does own them, he should be able to revitalize the corner. As we all know from Boston's most high-profile current developments, that doesn't mean destroying what we have at street level, though. It makes me wonder how much hard thought he and his people have put into this. Not as much as this city warrants, it seems.

Itchy and Briv have collected a lot of signatures. I hope those are submitted to the BRA too. The Mayor's office would be interested in the number of signatures collected as well.

Please, please guys, if anyone wants to help this weekend, that'd be great. I want to put in a few hours Saturday and Sunday gauging more public opinion, but I need to have a life too! If anyone can help Briv and me (and some young Back Bay residents we met last night who aren't connected to the forum) by taking a shift or two this weekend, please do!

 

[Ron Newman]

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

Just curious when is the last time the Landmark Commission or the Boston Preservation Alliance took a stand resulting in a significant building being preserved due to their direct intervention?

The Modern Theatre comes to mind. The building was quite close to falling down when the city decided that it needed to be saved and stabilized until a developer came along.

I can't recall many preservation controversies during the Menino years, other than Dainty Dot and the Gaiety.

 

[itchy]

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

I think the average Joe on the street does not observe and process the reality of what makes urban environments work well. They like what they see when they enter successful neighborhoods, but they don't understand why its interesting and successful. Here, I don't think the usual activists realize the potential negative impact to the streetscape of the proposed sterile landscraper. Most equate height as the primary enemy of Boston's fairly well preserved neighborhoods and unique scale. However, as most forum members know, when well located, height will have little significant negative impact on Boston urban enviroment.

No and yes. After talking to literally hundreds of people on the street, I think the average person does know what makes a city vibrant and worth spending time in. They know what makes Boston sell -- they're the ones who have "bought" it, after all.

I wish the city's planning authorities were a little more strategic in their thinking and realized that people actually do care about the feel of an urban environment -- and that it does affect their decisions to visit or do business in a place. I'd like to be a business owner in Boston some day, and I agree with the approach of State Street, which donates millions to the MFA and other organizations in order to make their international clients feel that this is a world-class city. They want their clients to feel that they are a serious firm in a serious city, and also one that has culture and history. After all, issues of location and nationality aside, wouldn't you rather own a home (for living or investment purposes) in Amsterdam than Houston? There's something very provincial and Boss Tweed-like in pushing the destruction of a beautiful old building like the Arlington so that an environment-killing, 1980s-style landscraper can be built. In 25 years, this will be dubbed a "blighted area" and we'll be at it again...

Unfortunately, most opponents to development in Boston or anywhere are worried about their narrow interests. Look at what's happening in Allston, or what happened with Dainty Dot. Height can enliven a city, make it more interesting. I wish Boston had many more much-taller buildings, and I think eventually that will happen. Yet people worry about shadows in their gardens or kitchens. I don't get it, and never will.

Larger concerns about how a city is affected are oftentimes overlooked. I don't know why -- maybe we as a people are sometimes too individualistic -- but it's why we shun public transport (though that's apparently set to change as long as gas is prohibitively expensive) and underinvest in infrastructure or parks or public art, as the Globe writes today.

What I've come to believe is that the success of an individual business or shop is directly tied to that of the city. Why invest in a city and its businesses if it's not a place with a bright future? And many of the growth industries in Boston -- from biotech to education to healthcare to tourism and even filmmaking -- rely either on persuading highly educated people who are sensitive to their environs to work here or rely on people who are in the city entirely because of its appearance (tourists and film crews and to a lesser degree students).

The biggest reason for the previous lack of opposition to this project was a lack of information. People on the street were outraged about this project, but nobody knows a thing about it. Getting a message out is important -- various media contacted me after last night, so hopefully we'll get something started. But the more anyone here can use their media contacts, the better!

 

[tobyjug]

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

I can't recall many preservation controversies during the Menino years, other than Dainty Dot and the Gaiety.

And we rest easy at night knowing what fine work the BRA is doing on those developments.

 

[underground]

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

Not to continue ragging on Rourke, but the other thing that blows my mind is that, at least by the accounts we're getting on the board, he was openly antagonizing a group of people who actually agree and support him 99.99% of the time. Talk about short sighted. What he should have done is came right up to you all after the meeting and tried to get you to come to other meetings.

 

[Beton Brut]

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

Sorry I've been kinda silent on this thread today -- I've been going since 6am.

First, Rourke conducted himself like a horse's ass last night. As a taxpayer and voter in the City of Boston, I look forward to telling him so publicly at the next meeting.

Shirley Kressel was sitting right behind me, and we spoke a few times during the course of the meeting. She was really impressed with itchy. Historic preservation makes for strange bedfellows. I think Shirley and the Back Bay Association folks would disagree with my proposed methodology -- preserve Shreve's in exchange for height (<25 stories/300') at mid-block. If there's shadows on the Garden, the benefit of preservation far outweighs a few dark afternoons in Winter (when the opponents are likely at their jobs).

Shirley did point out that the "blight" on that block may be "manufactured" (she nodded when I mentioned the Levin Family Trust and DTX in the same context) by Druker, simply to hasten the demo of these buildings. (Like tanking the season to get a draft-pick.) Itchy said something similar in the closing moments of the meeting.

Someone asked above if the fix is in -- I suppose that depends on who you ask.

We may lose this one, but if we do, we need to at least push for a revamping of Pelli's repulsive design (I told Myron Miller that it looked like a loaf of Wonder Bread), and to call into question (in he press) the BRA's role in ill-conceived development (Dainty Dot, Hotel Commonwealth, most of the South Boston Waterfront) and non-development (Kensington Place, Hayward Place, several projects in my own neighborhood).

 

[ablarc]

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

I sense the possibility of getting the BRA on the run. Someone needs to educate the mayor, his lackeys and his clowns, and truth is, it seems no one's better qualified to do it than the folks on this board.

And why not? Don't we spend an inordinate amount of time informing ourselves about the very urban issues they neglect while at home watching TV?

As Beton Brut demonstrated, we're at least as knowledgeable as Kressel and light years ahead of the clueless Li.

While conversing last week with one of my city's highly-placed planning officials, I mentioned Leon Krier in passing. "Who?" asked the official. He had never heard of Krier.

Some expert!

 

[briv]

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

Ive been pretty silent today as well, though I have been following the conversation intermittently. Rourke's behavior last night was pretty puzzling and I still don't know what it means. Other than that, last night has already been thoroughly summarized, so I'll just state my own POV on this project.

Personally, I think all four buildings should be saved. The Arlington Building goes without saying, but the three adjacent to it are of a much higher quality than they're being given credit. 334-350 Boylston, the two between the Arlington and WEIU, were built in 1898 and 1905 respectively. They have undergone some very bad renovations to their shopfronts and both wear a patina of neglect (which is really just cosmetic), but other than this, they are remarkably intact. With a little investment they could easily hold their own with anything on Newbury St. The WEIU is similarly intact but also retains most of its shopfront and interior as well. The inside is beautiful with domed ceilings, marble columns, sculpted capitals, and an ornate, wooden, gilded entrance. One could transform this into a premier retail space without even trying.

334-350 Boylston:

WEIU entrance, interior:

As I've written about in post #242, Druker doesn't need a variance, but he does need a special exception which is dependent on approval through a public design review. The current zoning would require the new building to step back 50' at a height of 85'--the same approximate height as the existing Arlington Building. Druker's building as it is proposed would rise to approx 100 feet on the street and then step back only slightly twice before rising to its final height of 120 ft (which, I believe, does not include mechanicals).

If you look at the south side of Boylston street from the Gardens westward, you'll see that every building adheres to this height limit or sets back at this height (the Arlington's roof line) all the way to the Lenox Hotel, including the two towers, 222 Berkeley and 500 Boylston St--even Druker's own Heritage on the Garden does this! There is the promise of a consistent streetwall along this side of Boylston that could be fulfilled quite easily if the shorter buildings on the A/B block were added onto to meet the height of the Arlington, the Berkeley, et al. I think this, along with the restoration of the historic buildings on the A/B block, is the right strategy to rejuvenating this stretch of Boylston, not the renounced and antiquated model of urban renewal that Druker seems to have adopted.

This is a quick massing model of what it might look like if Druker kept the existing facades and added on as allowed by the current zoning. It adds about 75,000 sq feet of space minus circulation, etc. I realize that a plan like this presents special problems due to varying floor heights and whatnot, but that's why you hire architects. Let Pelli earn those stratospheric fees.

Existing:

Addition:

 

[Bos_Mia]

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

Someone needs to educate the mayor, his lackeys and his clowns, and truth is, it seems no one's better qualified to do it than the folks on this board.

I'm not the Mayor or a lackey or a clown....At first i supported this proposal......but you guys have convinced me otherwise....for this very prominent corner Briv's rendering - saving the three - could be the beginnings of a successful effort to force re-design ....you guys are pursuasive and your arguments are sound...

 

[Boston Needs A ShakeShack]

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

I just want to say that i was at the meeting the other night, covering it in my capacity as a local reporter, and I have never seen such petulant, disgraceful behavior from a member of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Gerald Autler of the BRA, who managed the Suffolk IMP, sat through hundreds and hundreds of hours of public task force meetings and other public meetings and I never saw him once lose his patience with any citizen who actually had the unmitigated gall to actually want to voice an opinion at a public meeting, no matter how dumb or annoying the person was. Maybe the Suffolk meetings had better food or something. I don't know what Jay Rourke's problem is, but it was absolutely embarrassing. The BRA is not a private development firm, it's a public body, and he should respect the citizens of Boston. Why does he act like he has some sort of personal stake in the project?

And, I agree that the building is frigging hideous.

 

[tobyjug]

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

Briv's solution is very clever.

I respectfully dissent from the growing board consensus as to the merit of these buildings. Of the four, I favor saving the WEIU facade and interior fittings, and perhaps reusing them in some fashion in a new design. The fight to save all of them is worth it only as a means to force a good design at the site. Shreve's is vin ordinaire, and its two adjacent neighbors tired old park pigeons.

I wouldn't mind 150 feet at each end, lower in the middle, with segmentation along the front facade to break up the landscraper effect. An art nouveau treatment would be in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood, marketable and distinctive.

Since BRA officials suffer from precast erection syndrome, and Viagra won't help, I don't think we'll be getting our jollies from their limp efforts. So by all means, don't let them touch a brick.

 

[itchy]

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

The proposed building is a POS. But Druker's track record isn't great and developers on first try are always going to want to do things cheap (cheap buildings = lower costs, same revenue = bigger profits).

What really baffles me is two things: 1) How mismatched the "problem" and its "solution" are; and 2) How little interest the city seems to have in making sure we get something that benefits the city on this corner.

1) Druker and some businesses argue that the Arlington/Boylston corner is shabby and needs to be revitalized. This is true -- but what logic then leads to the solution we've come to of tearing down everything wholesale? If modern businesses need more space in these buildings, four or five floors of additional space could be added to the buildings while preserving their facades and retaining the visual diversity and beauty that they give to shoppers, churchgoers, diners and tourists at the street level.

Many of the complaints about the intersection made by those supporting the destruction of the Arlington Building and its neighbors revolve around "narrow sidewalks" in the area, an argument that in no way necessitates the destruction of the existing facades.

Druker is clearly being disingenuous: He says it is impossible to preserve the buildings' facades because of the water mains and subway station below. This argument has yet to be supported by independent, third-party analysis. Yet, his plan involves the construction of an underground parking garage for hundreds of cars. I guess the subway's layout really isn't so complicated...

2) The city has been absent from this process throughout. While the BRA actively supports the project and has been hostile and mocking of those who oppose it, the City Council and Mayor haven't said a peep. At this point, they must be aware of the project.

For businesses that complain the older buildings of Newbury Street and Boylston make it difficult to modernize, the city could set up a business improvement zone and help them with marketing and other needs rather than advocating wholesale demolition of their buildings because they are "too old and unmodern" Many of Europe's grandest cities remain commercially vibrant in areas full of much older structures, not to mention -- despite claims to the contrary -- Newbury Street.

And since when does this corner need to have Class A office space? It's successful as a shopping/dining/lodging/living area. I don't see the rush for a new offices area, especially given the glut of them coming online...

The City Council and Mayor Menino need to take a position on this project and think about the city's long-term and strategic interests: What will draw people to Boston or the Back Bay in 30 years? Will today's "landscrapers" of pre-cast materials (to be declared "blighted" in 30 years no doubt) or older, handcrafted buildings do a better job attracting businesses and residents?

 

[tobyjug]

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

For businesses that complain the older buildings of Newbury Street and Boylston make it difficult to modernize, the city could set up a business improvement zone and help them with marketing and other needs rather than advocating wholesale demolition of their buildings because they are "too old and unmodern" Many of Europe's grandest cities remain commercially vibrant in areas full of much older structures, not to mention -- despite claims to the contrary -- Newbury Street.

Well written, and argued with passion. Fine job. I regret having missed your presentation, but at the time I was sharing a cafe table and a bottle of Moet with a beautiful companion.

The pre-cast litterbox you describe exists. It is called the South Boston Waterfront. Go east, old Drucker!

 

[Beton Brut]

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

The pre-cast litterbox(!)

Brilliant, Toby -- you really do have a future in branding!

 

[itchy]

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

I'll be on Arlington and Boylston again tomorrow, from 2 pm.

Anyone who wants to come and help talk to people is more than welcome. If we can get a few people able to chip in an hour or two tomorrow and Sunday, that'd be great.

Let's make sure Boston doesn't shoot itself in the foot!

* Please bring a clipboard if you can.

 

[awood91]

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

hey guys, did anyone at the meeting happen to snap a picture of the rendering for the proposal? I'd like to know just how bad the pelli design is before I make some sort of final judgement on the whole project. Thanks!

 

[commuter guy]

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

I came in about 10 minutes late to the meeting and thought I heard some mumbling that the design had been tweeked as a result of received feedback. Renderings were presented but I was not able to tell any noticeable difference from the original renderings (which are shown in earlier posts on this thread). It appears that if any design changes were made, they were very minor in nature.

 

[itchy]

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

hmm, i also came in a bit late and didn't hear a peep about any design tweak. the renderings looked exactly as they already did, though...

 

[Boston Needs A ShakeShack]

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

hmm, i also came in a bit late and didn't hear a peep about any design tweak. the renderings looked exactly as they already did, though...

The renderings have changed since they were first unveiled earlier this year (not since the last meeting), but NOT based on public comments, but to get approval from the Boston Civic Design Commission. The massing is identical, but the roof changed a bit, they tweaked the bay sizes, and they added the wood panel storefronts. It still looks like the stay-puft marshmallow man's foot.

 

[riffgo]

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

hey guys, did anyone at the meeting happen to snap a picture of the rendering for the proposal? I'd like to know just how bad the pelli design is before I make some sort of final judgement on the whole project. Thanks!

Go to page 20!