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

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

Mr. Roarke's position in the BRA is essentially a public trust. He represents the public's interests in decisions regarding what's best for our city. He serves at the pleasure of the mayor. He neither serves the public's needs nor represents the Mayor well by acting like a petulant child under attack, or as an advocate for a developer.

Where is the fourth estate? Why hasn't the Globe taken this man to task? Does anyone have access to the The Globe? I have written a missive to Mr. Campbell hoping that he may weigh in, though this may not be his sort of thing.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I have written the Globe -- its editors and almost all metro reporters -- a number of times. Before Wednesday's meeting, one reporter wrote to say she'd told her editors about my heads up and that somebody should be contacting me... nobody did.

I don't know if the Globe is somehow in Druker's pocket as well, but none of their reporters is batting an eyelash. Join me tomorrow, and if we can get enough people involved the Globe will have no choice but to do some reporting!

It's funny, because the NY Times, which is known for its high-faluting distaste for local news and preference for big political pieces, prints a lot more about development and the public's reactions to it in New York than the Globe seems to do here. People in NYC are much quicker, for better or worse, to demand that developers provide benefit to the community. Maybe because NYC's permissions process is more open and involves the community more than in Boston; thus empowered, people don't roll over when a dud that is clearly planned only for the developer's wallet appears on the drawing board.

It's a very mixed blessing, because a bunch of moneyed bozo NIMBYs also nearly derailed Jean Nouvel's Tour Verre, aka the Greatest Skyscraper of the 21st Century. But I guess we as a people seem to think the benefits of public involvement outweigh the downsides, right? ...

Here's a piece from tonight's NY1 newscast, posted by the guys at Wired New York: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5840&page=71
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^Itchy started the blog. He's taken the initiative for all of this.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

itchy --

How'd it go this weekend?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

nm88 said:
I have written a missive to Mr. Campbell hoping that he may weigh in, though this may not be his sort of thing.
Click to expand...
That's right, he's made a career of shunning controversy.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

ablarc --

If you're in touch with any of your former students in Boston, have they shared their thoughts on this travesty. Or is speaking out against Druker career-suicide if you're an architect in parochial Boston?
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Beton,

It went well. There was a fairly large number of us down there, including myself and Briv, which always helps to make you look more legit. We collected well over 200 signatures in about 3 hours yesterday (nearly 1.5 signatures per minute), then we topped up to a total of 500 today just as the skies opened up. A number of local business owners heard about the proposal through us -- contrary to what the Young Republican who represented the "local business community" at the BRA meeting said, they were all against this. They offered to do what they could to spread the word because they are all shocked that the city would even fathom letting Druker destroy such an inarguably fine building as the Arlington.

Once again, as Briv can attest, almost nobody on the street this weekend said they supported a big landscraper office building on that block. People are pretty much uniformly horrified.

If anyone has any thoughts on how to convey this to the proper channels to make sure the city actually acts accountably, send me a PM!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

itchy said:
...the Young Republican who represented the "local business community" at the BRA meeting...
Click to expand...

That guy is a shill for Druker. He was at the last meeting and said the same thing -- verbatim. Maybe he's signed a pre-construction lease at a reduced rate? I wonder what his business is -- he comes off like a real tool.

We may want to talk to some of the abutting businesses, like the Rattlesnake, or the Parish Cafe, just across the street.

This ain't over yet. Shame is a powerful tool.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Is the tool a powerful shame?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^ If you're referring to the young go-getter with upper-management written all over him who was a booster for Druker's proposed atrocity, then yes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

"Or is speaking out against Drucker career-suicide if you're an architect in parochial Boston?"

It is advisable to not intervene in business outside of your neighborhood of residence unless you want to endanger your employment at any firm which works with any developer in question; or if you or your place of employment requires negotiations with the BRA presently or in the future.
 
URGENT: DRUKER RUNNING SCARED, TRYING TO HASTEN DEMOLITION OF ARLINGTON BULIDING

ANYONE WHO CAN ATTEND THIS, PLEASE DO

The Boston Landmarks Commission is holding a public hearing regarding the Druker request for demolition of the Arlington Building

TOMORROW, Tuesday July 22nd
5:45 pm
Boston City Hall
BRA Board Room
#900, 9th Flr.

After 5pm, use the Congress Street entrance, not 3rd floor entrance from the Plaze, which locks about 5:30.

*****************

It looks like this bastard is nervous about the brewing public outcry that we are creating. Along with the BRA -- the taxpayer-funded consultancy to help any crooked, city hall-friendly developer build whatever he wants, wherever, with no regard for the city's good -- Druker appears to be trying to knock the building down ASAP to prevent people from realizing what's happening. Yes, it's very, very cynical.

PLEASE, ATTEND THIS MEETING IF YOU DON'T WANT A ROW OF P.O.S. LANDSCRAPERS ACROSS 3 BLOCKS OF BOYLSTON.

These bastards are making one of Boston's main thoroughfares worse off then K St. in Washington DC.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I plan to attend
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Does it strike anyone as premature that the Landmarks Commission will have a hearing to potentially decide the issue of demolition when the BRA's comment period for community feedback has not even lapsed yet?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Is there a concensus agenda among those protesting the destruction as to what a suitable alternative would be?

Beyond the SCL building saved, their seems to be varying degrees of additional preservation vs. mid-block highrise vs. mid-rise with stepbacks, etc.

The worst thing about a NIMBY or PBTEB (Preserve Buildings That Enhance Boston) is that they can't present an economic alternative.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I'd like to see SCL and WEIU saved. I'm less exercised about the two in between, but if they can be saved too, that's fine with me.

My "suitable alternative"? Re-lease and re-populate the Arlington Building, as it was before the owner emptied it out. Retail below, offices above. WEIU already contains a very attractive retail store and needs no "alternative" at all.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

"Does it strike anyone as premature that the Landmarks Commission will have a hearing to potentially decide the issue of demolition when the BRA's comment period for community feedback has not even lapsed yet?"

Its a crooked procedural shuffle. Hold a meeting with short notice, have no one attend, approve demo, and when protests come up, "Well, no one commented at the meeting....you had you're chance".

Don't be surprised if rent-a-supporters show up to display glee at the prospect of a new generic box.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I. Detail: High quality and rich in street level detail. Multiple entrances along the length of Boylston.

II. Height: Assuming SCL and the Union are saved in some fashion, draw a line through the middle of the site on an east-west axis. Developer can go high on the Providence Street side of the axial line, as long as the Arlington Street wall on that side of the axis rises with a series of set backs after the 5th floor.

III. Massing: A) If SCL goes, forget the comments under height, supra. The corner at Arlington and Boylston should be a commanding focal point and taller than the rest of the building, but not taller than the steeple of Arlington St. Church. At present, the corner (and indeed, the east end of the block) is like a good looking person with a weak chin. Beef it up, so that when you stand in the park across from the Taj on a November day and survey the scene, the building anchors the corner. (SCL doesn't do this.) To use a metaphor, that corner should be the locomotive pulling the train (the block). B) The building should be massed in a way that makes it appear segmented when viewed along the Boylston St. side. The height along Boylston should not be uniform, but vary by at least 2 stories every 40 feet of running length (or some other mathematically sensible increment.) The height variation may be satisfied by setbacks from the street wall, but all such setbacks shall be at least 15 feet in depth above the fifth floor. This will eliminate the landscraper effect, and replicate the historic streetfront rythym of Back Bay street wall building.

IV. Parking: All access via Providence St. The garage entrance way shall have sufficient depth to allow at least 3 vehicles standing for access to wait within the building envelope.

V. Public Amenities: A) Developer funded upgrade of Arlington St. MBTA subway entrances, pedestrian tunnel under Arlington St. and station ticketing area. B) Developer funded upgrades of Public Garden in the quadrant nearest the corner of Arlington and Boylston. C) Restaurant space on Boylston St. side to have provision for removable front windows and sidewalk cafes.
.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^ Good ideas Toby. Good dog!

I'll make every effort to be at this meeting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top