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

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

I agree the question should be what does druker need to make this project work and still save the facade of SCL. This might be a perfect spot for a New York style thin residential high-rise at the back corner.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

This would be the Ideal solution,He has built some nice buildings that fit into thier Boston surroundings,A building that steps back as shown with a base that match it surroundings,then topped by a cool tower that compliements the Back Bay skyline seems like a no brainer!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

vanshnookenraggen said:
Is this along the lines of what you are thinking? (This tower is between 20 and 25 stories)
Click to expand...

Kinda. Nice massing model.

Suggestions:
The cornice of the podium should meet the cornice-line of Shreve's.
Push the tower to the southwest corner, thinner and slightly taller. Maybe a cool place for retro-Deco. Give it a hat. Menino will love it!

vanshnookenraggen said:
It would really anchor this corner of the Public Garden and combined with the Arlington St church it would create this grand entrance into the Back Bay.
Click to expand...

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

Pedestal building is now shorter and the tower is pushed back, 28 stories, hat.





From Copley Sq you can barely see the building.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

With that model the floor plates would be too small to be economically viable as office space.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^^True that.

I'm guessing we'd need to increase the bulk of the tower by 50-60%. A shame, as the proportions of the tower are quite nice.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Keep going! Don't stop now. We're definitely getting onto the right track.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

kmp1284 said:
With that model the floor plates would be too small to be economically viable as office space.
Click to expand...
Make the tower residential.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

While I like the first, larger floor plate design you showed, and support the concept, to sacrifice the other building to keep at least the facade of SC&L, I think you will run into the issues of shadows on the Public Garden. I can't image that you wouldn't have significant winter time shadows with that height that close and from a south-westerly direction.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

atlrvr said:
...I think you will run into the issues of shadows on the Public Garden. I can't image that you wouldn't have significant winter time shadows with that height that close and from a south-westerly direction.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course, but part of this exercise is to shine a light (no pun intended) on what some of us feel is ill-conceived public policy that constrains our city from being a viable center for life and commerce. Shadows in winter? Is this a real imposition on someone's Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness? Who would spend significant time in this location at 3PM in February? I've lived in this city for most of my 39 years on this earth, and in the hundreds of times I've walked across the Garden, I've never made note of throngs of sun-worshipers in winter.

And as I mentioned above, there is technology that can mitigate the shadows to some degree on the Arlington Street Church windows and the Garden.

Success in preserving SC&L and stewarding the building and the block to its best and highest use requires compromise. If someone's got a better idea, raise your voice.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Ballpark 16-20k Sq ft floor plates for spec office space, or it isn't economical. Try increasing the width of the tower along the Boylston street axis with a step up to your current height. Take a look at the RCA Victor building in NYC if you don't understand what I mean about the general form.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I think the addition of a thin high rise section is the best solution and obviously this would have to be residential, maybe hotel. The lower portion can still be office and retail. Adding a few thousand office workers and residents would be great for this area. I really haven't been in Boston all that much since I moved out in 85, moved back a few years ago but haven't been around much. This section of Boylston street was pretty dead back then.

I went to a presentation put on by Historic Neighborhoods about downtown crossing with Druker being the presenter. I went there disliking him in advance but was very impressed by his knowledge and concern about the city. My understanding on several things about downtown crossing changed after this.

He is second generation developer in Boston so he is no doubt looking to create his own mark. I would think he would be open to win/win development.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Beton Brut,

I almost put a smirky face in my post about shadows in winter, but I decided to present it as a factual obstacle as opposed to a facetious incongruity about development in Boston.

My guess is Drucker would prefer the tower proposal, but unfortunately is persuing the path of least resistance, which is "starchitect", low height, and uninspiring design.

My fear would be if you publically push height, you will stir the beast that is NABB to adadmantly insist that Drucker's current LOW RISE proposal is the preferably alternative.

The fact is, Drucker is probably right. Saving SC&L is probably not financially feasible without additional density at the other parcels, but as I said, the path of least resistance is to propose something palatable to the angry mob that cares about height above common sense urban design.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop



Couldn't find the awesome 1940s aerial I used to have which explains the massing better.

That massing concept on a miniature condensed scale could work and not cast significant shadows for any deathly length of time. Economics would push for the upper spire of the tower to be residential and the need for segregated elevators to do that might make the core unfeasibly large. Worth a stab if the height crowd would be calm enough for a reasonable study.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

This is the problem... pro-development people are going to need to work with NABB and many of the people who make our ears bleed with their anti-development positions.

The NABB activists are going to have hold their noses and compromise with us, just as we would have to do with them.

Otherwise the SC&L building goes the way of the wrecking ball.

We look at that thin high-rise concept and say "yes!", they look at it and say "yuck!"

To save the SC&L building we all need to transcend the typical "no development at all times" mantra that NABB is so famous for. What an incredible moment in time for NABB to show some leadership and gain much-needed credibility outside of their elitist membership ranks. This will help them reach beyond the Back Bay ladies-who-lunch crowd and will actually help them forge ties with urban planners, business leaders and real estate people. In the future, the NABB's leadership will be more welcomed.

I recommend everyone visit http://www.michaelflaherty.com/contact.html

Make sure that Mike Flaherty knows how you feel about Mayor Menino allowing for the demolition of the SC&L building. Mike is a good guy - but he's a politician, he doesn't care about the SC&L building, don't pretend that he does. What he does care - A LOT- about is votes, civic support, and issues to define his populist campaign against Menino. Flood his inbox, I've already sent letters and spoken to his staff.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Paraphrasing Daniel Plainview, "Sometimes I look at buildings and see nothing worth saving."
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

So...

The BRA meeting that will determine the fate of this block is tomorrow at 2PM. I've taken a personal day to attend -- I think it's that important.

This evening, a group of us will be meeting at 5:30, to discuss a course of action for tomorrow's meeting. If you're interested in attending, PM me and I'll send you location details. If you're concerned with Ron Druker's plan to turn one of the most important corners in Boston into "Anytown, USA" please come.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

embarrass and attack Cesar Pelli and Assoc.

show the BRA recent examples of some of their actual high quality work..the Cira Center in Philly, the Beijing Finance Center, heck even the K Street building in Wahsington DC. Plus the numerous other office buildings that look 100x better than that POS that Drucker proposed...

The firm is being used as a Trojan Horse to building something cheap and crappy in a prime city spot...

The Boylston design needs to be in step with Pelli and Assoc.'s history of projects or Drucker should hire another firm like CBT if he wants to skimp on the building's quality.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Would I be expelled from the forum if I went to the meeting and suggested the building should be demolished and replaced by some lovely open space?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top