Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment | 334-364 Boylston Street | Back Bay
- Thread starter statler
- Start date
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
The MDC property DOES NOT belong on the same list as Dainty Dot and SC&L. I agree, the latter properties should not be destroyed. They are both worth preserving. The MDC building is a mediocre building in every regard. It has a few very nice elements on the facade of the first two floors. The art deco, stamped brass, elements in the lobby are also quite nice. But such minor elements do not a beautiful building make. The design is a mish mash of neo colonial and art deco and the southern facing wall of the building (facing the towards beacon street and the now empty plaza) is an ugly swath of brick. As part of a streetwall such a building would work fine, but it does not work in its current context and its loss is no great tragedy.
The MDC property DOES NOT belong on the same list as Dainty Dot and SC&L. I agree, the latter properties should not be destroyed. They are both worth preserving. The MDC building is a mediocre building in every regard. It has a few very nice elements on the facade of the first two floors. The art deco, stamped brass, elements in the lobby are also quite nice. But such minor elements do not a beautiful building make. The design is a mish mash of neo colonial and art deco and the southern facing wall of the building (facing the towards beacon street and the now empty plaza) is an ugly swath of brick. As part of a streetwall such a building would work fine, but it does not work in its current context and its loss is no great tragedy.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
I was going to say the same thing. I won't miss the MDC building. Also, I think the whole rant is pretty overstated, as there are actually very few surface parking lots in the core of Boston.
I was going to say the same thing. I won't miss the MDC building. Also, I think the whole rant is pretty overstated, as there are actually very few surface parking lots in the core of Boston.
Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 5,971
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Tourist come to Boston to see and expect to see the old stuff ,they can see this new crap in their own cities,They better hurry up before it's all gone thanks to the mayor and the BRA!
Tourist come to Boston to see and expect to see the old stuff ,they can see this new crap in their own cities,They better hurry up before it's all gone thanks to the mayor and the BRA!
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Hyperbole doesn't help our cause, folks. There is no large-scale threat to old buildings in Boston.
Hyperbole doesn't help our cause, folks. There is no large-scale threat to old buildings in Boston.
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
We shouldn't design a city for tourists....Las Vegas and Orlando are for that. Making a city functional for its residents and businesses should be the primary objective.
That said, losing these buildings would damage the aesthetics that makes living in Boston enjoyable, but I don't buy into the notion that the city should be a shrine to 1910.
The logical compromise is that the architecturally suprioer (or significant) historic buildings or streetscapes are saved, and the rest is redeveloped into something that better suits the needs of the 21st Centurty. In fact, the system in place is designed for this concept. It's obvious that there are flaws (SC&L and Gaitey not being listed as historic is one of them), but fixing the current process (perhaps allowing a majority of the landmarks commission postions to be publically elected as opposed to appointed) would be more beneficial than a knee jerk reaction, that seems dangerously close to a moratorium on all demolition.
We shouldn't design a city for tourists....Las Vegas and Orlando are for that. Making a city functional for its residents and businesses should be the primary objective.
That said, losing these buildings would damage the aesthetics that makes living in Boston enjoyable, but I don't buy into the notion that the city should be a shrine to 1910.
The logical compromise is that the architecturally suprioer (or significant) historic buildings or streetscapes are saved, and the rest is redeveloped into something that better suits the needs of the 21st Centurty. In fact, the system in place is designed for this concept. It's obvious that there are flaws (SC&L and Gaitey not being listed as historic is one of them), but fixing the current process (perhaps allowing a majority of the landmarks commission postions to be publically elected as opposed to appointed) would be more beneficial than a knee jerk reaction, that seems dangerously close to a moratorium on all demolition.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Lordy lordy, it sounds like Steve Bailey and Alex Beam have taken up pseudonyms on our forum. This 'sky is falling', heaven preserve colonial Boston attitude is not the way to go. Tall is just fine if done right, density is generally good, and new buildings can be better than old buildings.
Lordy lordy, it sounds like Steve Bailey and Alex Beam have taken up pseudonyms on our forum. This 'sky is falling', heaven preserve colonial Boston attitude is not the way to go. Tall is just fine if done right, density is generally good, and new buildings can be better than old buildings.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Sorry if this post is steering this thread into a more general discussion of Boston preservation/urban development rather than just the Shreve proposal, but I do want to address Ron's comments that there is no large scale threat to old buildings in Boston.
Sorry to pull the fire alarm, but I think the uniqueness of Boston's urban environment is more fragile than many realize. Central Boston is so small geographically and severely and negatively impacted by lackluster new construction. I think it was Vanshnookenraggen who noted that NYC is putting up prefab crap left and right but it just gets buried in the mass of buildings in Manhattan. Sprinkle a few of these types of buildings here and there in Boston and the whole feel of the streetscape changes for the affected neighborhood.
Boston has already lost so much urban fabric as a result of urban renewal. Huge swaths of this geographically minature city were leveled. Here are a couple of quotes taken from prior posts by "Charlie MTA" commenting on Boston's urban fabric:
"I think the problem is the vast chunks of high density urban fabric that have been blown away. There are the obvious big gaps in the city like Charles River Park apartments, GC and RKG, but even Causeway Street and the old North Station site have that wide open suburban feeling, much different than in the 1980's."
and
"The central city obviously didn't look like a suburb as it does now, but rather had an urban excitement originating from the people of the city itself, rather than from suburban visitors. Boston has become prettier is some ways, uglier in others, and has definitely lost a good part of the vibrancy that comes from a healthy, dense fully urban envirinment."
Now the BRA and Menino are letting the remaining commercial areas of central Boston that are not designated landmark districts (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Bay Village and the South End) be slowly whittled away with substandard new construction and/or demolition. The N. Station/Causeway Street area feels like the open range compared to 10 -15 years ago.
The horror of the Hotel Commonwealth transformed the scale and look of Kenmore Square in one fell swoop.
The unprotected area sandwiched between the Back Bay and S. End historic districts is now seeing proposals for aesthetically substandard new construction and parcel consolidation. See Druker's proposal for the Shreve building and surrounding parcels. There are rumors that Berkley School of Music is consolidating ownership and parcels on Boylston Street near Mass. Ave.
The urban fabric of the Combat Zone has changed greatly in recent years. Add the Dainty Dot demolition on the other side of Chinatown.
I don't wish the whole central city was a protected historic district. I do wish the BRA had a better proactice urban vision for the city. Boston's streetscape is sensitive and without some planning leadership coming from the Mayor's office or the BRA it will continually be at great risk.
I'm all for well designed new development and the potential benefits increased density can offer to the urban environment of Boston. However, the new construction schlock that the BRA/ Mayor has allowed to be built in recent years or that is currently proposed often results in a net loss for Boston's urban environment, in particular when the new construction involves the demolition of aesthically superior preexisting building(s).
I say lets work on preserving the remaining urban fabric of Boston, encourage development on empty/vacant parcels, and when proposals for replacing historic buildings arise such as with the Dainty Dot and the MDC building, demand that the new construction be an actual improvement to the sensitive urban fabric of Boston.
That's my 2 cents ...
Sorry if this post is steering this thread into a more general discussion of Boston preservation/urban development rather than just the Shreve proposal, but I do want to address Ron's comments that there is no large scale threat to old buildings in Boston.
Sorry to pull the fire alarm, but I think the uniqueness of Boston's urban environment is more fragile than many realize. Central Boston is so small geographically and severely and negatively impacted by lackluster new construction. I think it was Vanshnookenraggen who noted that NYC is putting up prefab crap left and right but it just gets buried in the mass of buildings in Manhattan. Sprinkle a few of these types of buildings here and there in Boston and the whole feel of the streetscape changes for the affected neighborhood.
Boston has already lost so much urban fabric as a result of urban renewal. Huge swaths of this geographically minature city were leveled. Here are a couple of quotes taken from prior posts by "Charlie MTA" commenting on Boston's urban fabric:
"I think the problem is the vast chunks of high density urban fabric that have been blown away. There are the obvious big gaps in the city like Charles River Park apartments, GC and RKG, but even Causeway Street and the old North Station site have that wide open suburban feeling, much different than in the 1980's."
and
"The central city obviously didn't look like a suburb as it does now, but rather had an urban excitement originating from the people of the city itself, rather than from suburban visitors. Boston has become prettier is some ways, uglier in others, and has definitely lost a good part of the vibrancy that comes from a healthy, dense fully urban envirinment."
Now the BRA and Menino are letting the remaining commercial areas of central Boston that are not designated landmark districts (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Bay Village and the South End) be slowly whittled away with substandard new construction and/or demolition. The N. Station/Causeway Street area feels like the open range compared to 10 -15 years ago.
The horror of the Hotel Commonwealth transformed the scale and look of Kenmore Square in one fell swoop.
The unprotected area sandwiched between the Back Bay and S. End historic districts is now seeing proposals for aesthetically substandard new construction and parcel consolidation. See Druker's proposal for the Shreve building and surrounding parcels. There are rumors that Berkley School of Music is consolidating ownership and parcels on Boylston Street near Mass. Ave.
The urban fabric of the Combat Zone has changed greatly in recent years. Add the Dainty Dot demolition on the other side of Chinatown.
I don't wish the whole central city was a protected historic district. I do wish the BRA had a better proactice urban vision for the city. Boston's streetscape is sensitive and without some planning leadership coming from the Mayor's office or the BRA it will continually be at great risk.
I'm all for well designed new development and the potential benefits increased density can offer to the urban environment of Boston. However, the new construction schlock that the BRA/ Mayor has allowed to be built in recent years or that is currently proposed often results in a net loss for Boston's urban environment, in particular when the new construction involves the demolition of aesthically superior preexisting building(s).
I say lets work on preserving the remaining urban fabric of Boston, encourage development on empty/vacant parcels, and when proposals for replacing historic buildings arise such as with the Dainty Dot and the MDC building, demand that the new construction be an actual improvement to the sensitive urban fabric of Boston.
That's my 2 cents ...
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
^ Why do we have to argue as if each situation were an either/or proposition? Sometimes opposition is only slight, and not diametrical. Sometimes compromise is in order.
Let's face it, at times taller is desirable, and other times it's not. Why can't we reward preservation with a greater option for height and density?
I heartily applaud Ablarc's concepts for preserving S,C,&L, while adding to the height of the overall project at the opposite end. This makes the most sense, and everyone wins.
^ Why do we have to argue as if each situation were an either/or proposition? Sometimes opposition is only slight, and not diametrical. Sometimes compromise is in order.
Let's face it, at times taller is desirable, and other times it's not. Why can't we reward preservation with a greater option for height and density?
I heartily applaud Ablarc's concepts for preserving S,C,&L, while adding to the height of the overall project at the opposite end. This makes the most sense, and everyone wins.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
From today's Herald:
From today's Herald:
The Boston Herald said:Shreve may get reprieve
Move to stop building demo
By Greg Turner | Saturday, October 18, 2008 |
Photo by Herald file photo
A group of art deco advocates have another shot at saving the former Shreve, Crump & Low building in Boston?s Back Bay.
The 104-year-old building at Boylston and Arlington streets - across from the Public Garden - is set for demolition by Hub developer Ronald Druker, who plans to replace it with a luxury office and retail complex.
Druker?s $120 million project won approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority Thursday - but just the day before a group of petitioners filed a request for landmark status for the building.
The Boston Landmarks Commission shot down a similar bid two years ago, saying the structure?s art deco architecture was not significant beyond the city.
The new petitioners offer a more worldly perspective, after gathering letters of concern and outrage from art deco societies from as far away as Australia.
?The rarity of such buildings (and the need for preservation) is increasingly being understood around the globe and it would be tragic if such a fine example in Boston was inappropriately redeveloped (or worse, demolished),? states a letter from the head of the Art Deco Society in Melbourne.
Diana Eckstein, an attorney who lives nearby and leads the petitioners, said the Landmarks Commission, in its October 2006 rejection, noted it would reconsider ?should new information that elevates the building?s significance above the local level be discovered.?
Eckstein said the commission has already scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 10 at City Hall.
?I?m treating it as if it?s the last chance to save the building,? said David Friend, a longtime Back Bay resident. ?The block has some real character. When you look at all the handcarved stonework . . . it?s not an architectural masterpiece, but it?s certainly worth saving.?
Druker has ruled out as too expensive a renovation that would keep the Shreve facade intact. He could not be reached yesterday.
If the Landmarks Commission backs the petition, the site would still need approval from the city council and mayor to become an official Boston landmark.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino has ?always respected the Landmarks Commission process,? said Dot Joyce, the mayor?s spokeswoman.
?However, the Landmarks Commission has already heard (a petition) and denied it, and right now he supports the current proposal? for the site, she said.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1126266
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Interesting article. I've been following this thread for a while and was waiting for a discussion about the lack of attention given to this building by the Landmarks Commission. I was an historic commissioner in a city in Ohio and was often frustrated by my board's lack of interest in any building that wasn't victorian. I've always thought that this may be the case with the SC&L building -- that the period and style of this structure doesn't fit into the commission's idea of what is historic Boston.
Interesting article. I've been following this thread for a while and was waiting for a discussion about the lack of attention given to this building by the Landmarks Commission. I was an historic commissioner in a city in Ohio and was often frustrated by my board's lack of interest in any building that wasn't victorian. I've always thought that this may be the case with the SC&L building -- that the period and style of this structure doesn't fit into the commission's idea of what is historic Boston.
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
I was avoiding this thread because the thought of losing this building is too depressing -- I don't have any faith that its replacement would be as worthwhile, let alone an improvement.
glad to see it's not a done deal, yet.
I was avoiding this thread because the thought of losing this building is too depressing -- I don't have any faith that its replacement would be as worthwhile, let alone an improvement.
glad to see it's not a done deal, yet.
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
In this case the whole "it's too expensive to renovate" is nonsense...Druker has owned the property for long enough that he would still do quite well if it were simply a renovation project. The basis at which he bought the property and the cost to renovate would UNDOUBTEDLY justify the returns. This card is often played, and often true, but in this case it is simply an effort to distort the facts.
In this case the whole "it's too expensive to renovate" is nonsense...Druker has owned the property for long enough that he would still do quite well if it were simply a renovation project. The basis at which he bought the property and the cost to renovate would UNDOUBTEDLY justify the returns. This card is often played, and often true, but in this case it is simply an effort to distort the facts.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
The Landmarks Commission has scheduled a hearing for 5:30pm on November 10th at City Hall, Room 900. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the Shreve building is to be granted landmark status. At this hearing, the public will be able to comment on the proposed landmark designation. I have been informed that reporters from the Herald will be there, among others.
I plan to be there for this very important meeting. Come if you can and show your support for the preservation of the Shreve building.
PS: this building is an important historic and urban asset. It doesn't matter whether you are a city resident or not. Further, the petition for reconsideration indicates that this building does have significance beyond the City of Boston.
The Landmarks Commission has scheduled a hearing for 5:30pm on November 10th at City Hall, Room 900. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the Shreve building is to be granted landmark status. At this hearing, the public will be able to comment on the proposed landmark designation. I have been informed that reporters from the Herald will be there, among others.
I plan to be there for this very important meeting. Come if you can and show your support for the preservation of the Shreve building.
PS: this building is an important historic and urban asset. It doesn't matter whether you are a city resident or not. Further, the petition for reconsideration indicates that this building does have significance beyond the City of Boston.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Please add that to this site's calendar section if you haven't already done so.
Please add that to this site's calendar section if you haven't already done so.