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

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

commuter guy said:
No, I'm not sure. I'm speculating its whether they should impose a demolition delay.
Click to expand...

Demolition Delay
Through Article 85 of the Boston Zoning Code (Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1956, as amended), also known as Demolition Delay, the Boston Landmark Commission reviews any demolition that takes place outside of the local districts or individual landmark properties. For a brief explanation of Demolition Delay, click here. For an application and more details, please contact staff. A determination letter is needed from the Boston Landmarks Commission before the Inspectional Services Department will issue a demolition permit.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

tobyjug said:
Additional demand for the developer: stop being self congratulatory about the Four Seasons. Yes, it was better than what was there before, but the bloom is off the rose. It doesn't look good anymore. The state of the art has passed it by. So don't build a "Four Seasons 2010" on this corner. You are 30 years late.
Click to expand...
The Four Seasons in Washington DC has a facade quite similar to the one in Boston, and built in the same era, roughly. I think the DC Four Seasons may be a bit older. The facade is so banal that you can't find a good image of it on-line. This is the closest I could find; it is the front facade by the entrance, but the motif is repeated on all four sides.

340x.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^^ No wonder -- the garbage Druker proposes looks like it's off of one of downtown DC's Boulevards of Plastic Buildings (eg, K Street). Incidentally, one of Pelli's current projects is a 9-story landscraper on K Street.

So maybe if we're really lucky and the BRA has its way, Boylston will be the next K Street.

Please come to the meeting tonight!

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.

Show them we won't take K Street sitting down!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Good luck boys! See if you can get the BRA to shift out of reverse!

L1090351.jpg
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Shreve gets a 90 day stay of execution from the BLC. Commission members totally ripped Druker's design a new one; they were actually flabbergasted that anyone would proposed such a hideous design, and were shocked the the BCDC approved it.

Not sure what can be done during the 90 days to stave off demolition. Best hope might be to petition the Landmarks Commission again for Landmark designation, but that would require finding some new pertinent historical information that was not part of the original petition. if we want to save the Shreve, then we need to look through that first petition and see if anything new can be added.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Power to the people!

I think we actually have a shot at affecting change here, either by preserving these buildings or shaming Druker into a better design. Momentum is shifting. Your involvement can really make an impact. Put your thinking caps on, people.

Having drinks w/ briv and discusing our next move. More later.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Does the 90-day delay apply only to the Arlington Building, or also to the other three?

And, responding to an earlier post:
Isn't the WEIU the last remaining residential town house on what was once a major residential street
Click to expand...

Doesn't look like it to me. Residential townhouses are usually taller than two stories. This was built as a commercial structure.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Boston Needs A ShakeShack said:
that would require finding some new pertinent historical information that was not part of the original petition. if we want to save the Shreve, then we need to look through that first petition and see if anything new can be added.
Click to expand...

If someone gets a copy, I would appreciate your sending me one. I cannot promise any result, but will review the petition with several of my land use colleagues.

Are you still collecting signatures, etc.?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Ron Newman said:
Does the 90-day delay apply only to the Arlington Building, or also to the other three?

And, responding to an earlier post:


Doesn't look like it to me. Residential townhouses are usually taller than two stories. This was built as a commercial structure.
Click to expand...

You're right, I think I'm thinking of their previous location.

Menino does not have original ideas. If you can get this into the Herald or Globe then Menino will be on board.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Ron - The 90-day hold is for all buildings on the proposed site. We have a lot of work to do.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Synopsis of Landmark Commission meeting:

Briv, Beton Brut and myself in attendance.

3 persons who appeared to be laypersons spoke in favor. One self proclaimed "business owner" who is purportedly located in Back Bay was at the prior BRA meeting and spoke in favor again of Druker's proposal. He was sitting next to another self identified "business owner" who also spoke in favor. This proponent stated he has rented offices on many of the buildings on this very block because it was the only place he could find affordable office space in the back Bay. The next sentence from him is that we need to replace the building to bring in more class A space to the Back Bay and this block needs an upgrade. A bit ironic I thought. Its akin to a middle income person telling their landlord please raise my rent so I have to leave - it will improve the neighborhood.

7 people, including but not limited to myself, Diane Eckstein from the Neighborhood Assoc. of Back Bay, Shirley Kressel and Sarah Kelley, the head of Boston Preservation Alliance, spoke in opposition.

Landmarks commission delayed demolition for 90 days of all buildings. There was a lot of discussion back and forth between Drukers lawyer from Goulston and Storrs and the Landmark Commission members about waiving the demolition prohibition in exchange for a set of conditions. The conditions mentioned were to work with Landmark commission members on re-working the design and for Druker to have financing in place before any demolition. Druker's lawyer indicated that they would work with the commission, but design could only be advisory and that the Landmarks Commission not entertain any further new applications for Landmark designation for any of the buildings in question. There was no agreement regarding these alternative proposals so the demolition delay remained.

Some of the members of the Landmarks commission spoke and gave their opinion. No member spoke in favor of the current design. In summary, the design went over like a lead balloon. One member expressed utter surprise that the Boston Civic Design Commission (BCDC) approved this design without major adjustment. The BCDC review is apparently advisory only, but it probably has some impact on BRA appoval etc. Other members commented on how the design doesn't reflect Back Bay in any way and that the design at the corner of the building was sorely lacking. One politely told Druker this project is not in anyway up the standards or his prior developments. They were not happy with the proposed massing. Druker seemed stuck on the current massing scheme and mentioned the constraint of current zoning for the parcel. It was clear that many on the commission would obviously favor some type of adaptive reuse or in the alternative a much better design. Although the buildings did not quite reach the high bar to become a Landmark under the prior landmark designation request, it was quite obvious that there is great deal of disappointment among commission members regarding the current proposal.

Drukers cell phone went off loudly twice, once while he was directly addressing the Commission. Very bad timing. His team tried to argue hardship - siesmic and ADA etc. upgrades would cost too much. There was no dispute that the buildings are in good structural condition.

Jay Rourke from the BRA was there but he didn't make a peep.

I told the Commission that if nothing can be done to save the buildings, the Design could be much improved. I noted this project reminds me of Darth Vader building aka One Exeter and that Druker can do and has done better.

Most Back Bay residents apparently found out about this meeting last minute and the local Back Bay newspaper is giving it some coverage. The residents are apparently starting to take notice and they don't like it as per one Back Bay resident who spoke in opposition.

It was communicated to the commission that over 500 signatures have been collected in opposition to the project as currently proposed.

Comment period to BRA is still open. Project is still going through Article 80 BRA design review. It is not too late to let decision makers and politicians know how unhappy Bostonians are about this project. Hopefully the Mayor and the BRA take notice. I wonder if Councilor Flaherty, who is the closest thing Menino has to competition at this point, would be receptive to the frustration brewing in the city on this project.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

All -

Sorry I could not be there tonight; I am out of town for business and only found out about this when everyone else did -- late yesterday evening.

Given that even the city pols realize what a lemon this design is and that the current buildings, while not as profitable as The Developer would like (The Developer here also being the guy who intentionally underinvested in them for years to be able to claim hardship while he put together a proposal for something a slow four-year-old could come up with), are beautiful and historically significant structures, this is a battle worth fighting.

Moreover, I know this is a battle where the city can come out on top, rather than let a small-time but connected developer and the BRA (WTF? why does this supposedly disinterested government organization have an interest inevitably skewed toward friendly developers, no matter how vile their plans?) raze more of Boston's finest and put pre-fab garbage up in its stead.

We need to fight this fight on all fronts, and anyone who wants to help is very, very welcome to.

First of all, we need to address the landmarking question. We need to put together a strong, comprehensive case, including by amassing all the information we possibly can on these buildings and telling the landmarks commission something they don't already know. There's a lot of institutional memory on this site, so anyone who knows anything about these buildings, please speak up! Also, anyone who is either a student with professors who know a good deal about architectural history/Boston history, talk to them and get them to help out. Finally, if anyone knows any good local historians, writers or historical societies, pass their names along.

Equally crucial will be getting media to start paying attention. I've tried very hard to interest over a dozen metro reporters at the Globe, to no avail, as well as Van Voorhis and others. Does anybody know anyone at the Globe, Herald or TV stations? I'm curious to find out why they're so loath to write a story that's interesting, easy to write, of great local relevance, and scandalous... I don't know what interests are at play here.

Public outcry is another thing to focus on. Spread the word, and help hit the streets if you can. As a rule, Bostonians -- like anyone else, though with a bit more zeal -- do not want to see key historic areas of their city demolished. Getting the word out about this project and channeling public opposition is key to showing politicians how sensitive people are to this sort of obviously bad deal.

Finally, let's make sure the city's politicians are aware of what's at stake here. None of them wants to see this sort of thing (worthy old structures flattened for half-block-long monolith landscrapers) happen any more than the average person on the street, but they're too often unaware of these projects.

This is a fight that can be won if we get active immediately. Even a little bit of thought, strategy or digging up old contacts can help cut this Gordion's Knot.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I haven't, Ron. Thanks for that -- it's exactly the sort of tip I was hoping for!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I believe Mr. Druker's sister sits on one of the landmark commisions. I think it's the BPA, Boston Preservation Alliance, though I may be wrong. I wrote the mayor a year ago about this. Surprisingly, that organization voted against preservation. When asked if there was a conflict of interest for her in this issue, she responded "That's silly." I will try to dig up the source.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Good work, guys ... sorry I wasn't able to be there to help.

I'm glad that this time Rourke had the good sense to keep quiet.

You'd think that a public entity responsible for development would have widespread support amongst a well-educated contingent on a pro-development, urbanist-oriented forum like this one. The fact that the BRA doesn't have many friends amongst those of us who rail against NIMBYs should be of concern to anyone over there who takes an urban planning job seriously.

It's also amazing that there doesn't seem to be a shred of humility from the representatives of an organization that had a hand in compiling a development "Hall of Shame" within walking distance of this site, spanning several decades ... from Charles River Park in the '50s through City Hall Plaza and Castle Square in the '60s to the bunker-like 57 Hotel (Radisson) in the '70s to the Four Seasons carport in the '80s to the tinkertoy Hotel Commonwealth in the '00s and the prefab mega-block Seaport, a work of awfulness in progress. For every well designed building there seem to be a host of high-profile clunkers, spanning decades, and some of the same basic mistakes (e.g., with respect to streetscape/garage entrances, ill-considered materials, megablocks that destroy all texture) seem to be repeated over and over again, from the West End to the Dainty Dot.

So here's a message to the members of the BRA who are surfing this Board - I'm glad you are here. I hope you will take the time to read through all of the threads. I hope you will learn some things ... I know I have learned a ton. The vast majority of us here are supportive of development, we realize that developers have to be able to make a profit, and on the margins, most of us don't mind adding an extra floor (or two, or twenty, or fifty) if it comes in an appropriate setting with good design. We also recognize that you, allied with the Mayor, are powerful, and we are not.

But please, show a bit of humility and don't allow yourselves to become shills for any and all proposals from well-connected developers. On balance, weighing the body of its work through the decades, and in spite of a few high-profile successes in recent years, the BRA's contribution to the urban fabric of this city has been a net negative. Engage your colleagues. Do any of you honestly think that the landscraper proposed for Arlington and Boylston will figure on the positive side of the ledger?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

On the status of Pelli's K St. Project (post #191 ^ for a rendering). The two buildings that comprise the site have been demolished and the surface leveled at grade, a la the Kensington. No sign of the general contractor (Clark) moving on-site. As a portent of what might happen next, a masonry contractor came in and rebricked sidewalks and medians that had been damaged during the demolition. Vornado / Charles Smith is the developer, and one now wonders if the financing is in place.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Much as I love the Shreve building I think the best we can hope for is a redesign of the existing proposal. I agree, it's a 21st century rendition of the Darth Vader building. Is the BCDC simply too intimidated by the Pelli brand that it dares not quibble with his shlock design? It also surprises me that Druker would accept such mediocrity. Either way, good work gents!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I spoke to Rep. Marty Walz today and she is very much in favor of preserving the Shreve Building, and she also does not care for the design. She could be an ally, but she did not seem to know how the demolition could be stopped at this point. She did say that the Impact Advisory Group has yet to make a determination, and could be another point at which the project could be stopped.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

If anyone needs a signature from a back bay resident (well, former resident, though I still own my place there), feel free to PM me, and I can provide a current fax #
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top