Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment | 334-364 Boylston Street | Back Bay
- Thread starter statler
- Start date
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,444
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Neither designs are acceptable....but I agree with sidewalks, it's better than the one before. I wish I could go to this meeting, but I'm going to be working late tonight.
Neither designs are acceptable....but I agree with sidewalks, it's better than the one before. I wish I could go to this meeting, but I'm going to be working late tonight.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Yes, but is will be a profitable giant glass fist and that is the only metric by which a building's value should be measured.
Things like scale, massing, design and general ascetics are just for fancy cheese eaters.
Yes, but is will be a profitable giant glass fist and that is the only metric by which a building's value should be measured.
Things like scale, massing, design and general ascetics are just for fancy cheese eaters.
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Looking at this new design it seems as though they could effectively incorporate the old fa?ade into this building. It would help alleviate the ugliness and tedium of what is pretty much a ground monster.
Looking at this new design it seems as though they could effectively incorporate the old fa?ade into this building. It would help alleviate the ugliness and tedium of what is pretty much a ground monster.
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
OK, so lots of glass and what looks like a healthy dose of Trashobond. Oh, can we get that and precast at the base too? That would be just swell. Damn you small image sizes, I can't tell if that has already happened.
This building has the massing of a shelf at Foot Locker - nothing more than a couple of shoe boxes stacked on top of each other.
OK, so lots of glass and what looks like a healthy dose of Trashobond. Oh, can we get that and precast at the base too? That would be just swell. Damn you small image sizes, I can't tell if that has already happened.
This building has the massing of a shelf at Foot Locker - nothing more than a couple of shoe boxes stacked on top of each other.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 413
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Fisting for fun and profit?
(I'll reserve my opinion until I see some renderings with more realistic viewing angles.)
Fisting for fun and profit?
(I'll reserve my opinion until I see some renderings with more realistic viewing angles.)
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,964
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Wow, that is going to be ugly. Even the stylized rendering can't hide the fact.
Wow, that is going to be ugly. Even the stylized rendering can't hide the fact.
Patriots_1228
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Justin7: If there wasn't that damn rule about shadows on the common, i'm sure he would have kept the old building and put a small tower on the top like at russia wharf. Congrats Boston, you failed.
This isn't all that bad though. At least it A) doesn't look like it belongs on Route 128, B) looks pretty urban and C) has those setbacks so its not just a box.
Justin7: If there wasn't that damn rule about shadows on the common, i'm sure he would have kept the old building and put a small tower on the top like at russia wharf. Congrats Boston, you failed.
This isn't all that bad though. At least it A) doesn't look like it belongs on Route 128, B) looks pretty urban and C) has those setbacks so its not just a box.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,613
- Reaction score
- 1,353
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
RD ain't gonna get this financed anytime soon, unless he lines up a tenant to lease a majority of the space beforehand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/business/economy/02office.html
The article even quotes Prudential Real Estate, Don C's erstwhile partner on the Harbor Garage project.
RD ain't gonna get this financed anytime soon, unless he lines up a tenant to lease a majority of the space beforehand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/business/economy/02office.html
The article even quotes Prudential Real Estate, Don C's erstwhile partner on the Harbor Garage project.
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
You know, Druker could make a killing and please all us architecture bums, and all the presevationists, if he did this like FP3. I'm sure Stern could do a quality job fusing the old SCL with a contemporary, set-back, 5-or-so story addition on top.
Such a damn shame. This whole fiasco really makes me lose trust in Boston's leadership. I could care a little less in the Seaport, where the precedent doesn't really have much to lose; but here, it really matters. And it's rather sad and pathetic that Menino's influence is this powerful.
You know, Druker could make a killing and please all us architecture bums, and all the presevationists, if he did this like FP3. I'm sure Stern could do a quality job fusing the old SCL with a contemporary, set-back, 5-or-so story addition on top.
Such a damn shame. This whole fiasco really makes me lose trust in Boston's leadership. I could care a little less in the Seaport, where the precedent doesn't really have much to lose; but here, it really matters. And it's rather sad and pathetic that Menino's influence is this powerful.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
BostonYoureMyHome
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
^^I'm going to have to disagree on the geode form...I would rather see a Walmart
^^I'm going to have to disagree on the geode form...I would rather see a Walmart
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
The options are endless, I can't say I'm in love with the geode, but it's definitely interesting. Certainly more unique than almost anything else in contemporary Boston.
The options are endless, I can't say I'm in love with the geode, but it's definitely interesting. Certainly more unique than almost anything else in contemporary Boston.
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Well, no, or that's what he would have proposed. He isn't proposing demoing SCL to reduce his profit margin.
The fact is, to offer attractive sized floor plates, and to cost effectively build a parking garage, both needed to achieve rents sufficient to cover the cost, then this is the best option. The only other otion is to build much taller at the other parcels, to increase total revenue at the decreased profit margin.
I'm not saying I support his proposal because he is entitled to a profit, but rather saying that just because a project is more aesthetically pleasing, or is at least more desirable from an architectural/urban design standpoint, does not (and is ofter inversely related) equal profitability.
Well, no, or that's what he would have proposed. He isn't proposing demoing SCL to reduce his profit margin.
The fact is, to offer attractive sized floor plates, and to cost effectively build a parking garage, both needed to achieve rents sufficient to cover the cost, then this is the best option. The only other otion is to build much taller at the other parcels, to increase total revenue at the decreased profit margin.
I'm not saying I support his proposal because he is entitled to a profit, but rather saying that just because a project is more aesthetically pleasing, or is at least more desirable from an architectural/urban design standpoint, does not (and is ofter inversely related) equal profitability.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
I attended this meeting yesterday. Pretty much ruined my day.
I arrived at the meeting a little late and only caught the end of the presentation. From what I could see from the rear of the room, the design continues its paring down, now reduced to a windowed box with a couple of setbacks. The presenter-- I assume he was from Stern's office -- stated a few times that the building will have have high-quality details and that's where the focus will be. However, judging by the details on Stern's other 2 nearby buildings -- the cartoonish 222 Berkeley and the shockingly cheap-looking Clarendon, I have to say I'm doubtful.
Interestingly, the presenter also mentioned how the new less is more aesthetic, ie, box, was based off a sketch by the BRA's Kairos Shen. He also mentioned that this new design reflects the intention that this be a background building, which I found laughable considering the extreme prominence of the building's site and its gargantuan scale. It will dwarf its entire block, as well as the Arlington St. Church, and utterly dominate, visually, this corner of the Public Garden. I assume that's why we see them getting cute with the POV in the renderings, angling the perspective downward from some imaginary vantage point 500' above the Public Garden.
During the comment and question portion of the presentation, Andrea Leers, a BCDC Commissioner, heaped praise on the new boxy approach. She also made a befuddling remark to the effect that although the BCDC has voiced their desire for a much grander, bolder design for this very important site than those previously proposed, well, I guess that's impossible, so a plain box is great -- to which several other commissioners agreed.
There were comments from neighborhood residents and a representative from the Preservation Alliance lamenting being left out of the redesign discussions, and criticizing the secretive, backroom nature of the process.
My impression was that this commission was just going through the motions, and they're ready to rubber stamp anything Druker shows them at this point. It makes me wonder what the point of such a commission is. After all, if a 400' blank black wall could get by them (45 Province), what can't?
I attended this meeting yesterday. Pretty much ruined my day.
I arrived at the meeting a little late and only caught the end of the presentation. From what I could see from the rear of the room, the design continues its paring down, now reduced to a windowed box with a couple of setbacks. The presenter-- I assume he was from Stern's office -- stated a few times that the building will have have high-quality details and that's where the focus will be. However, judging by the details on Stern's other 2 nearby buildings -- the cartoonish 222 Berkeley and the shockingly cheap-looking Clarendon, I have to say I'm doubtful.
Interestingly, the presenter also mentioned how the new less is more aesthetic, ie, box, was based off a sketch by the BRA's Kairos Shen. He also mentioned that this new design reflects the intention that this be a background building, which I found laughable considering the extreme prominence of the building's site and its gargantuan scale. It will dwarf its entire block, as well as the Arlington St. Church, and utterly dominate, visually, this corner of the Public Garden. I assume that's why we see them getting cute with the POV in the renderings, angling the perspective downward from some imaginary vantage point 500' above the Public Garden.
During the comment and question portion of the presentation, Andrea Leers, a BCDC Commissioner, heaped praise on the new boxy approach. She also made a befuddling remark to the effect that although the BCDC has voiced their desire for a much grander, bolder design for this very important site than those previously proposed, well, I guess that's impossible, so a plain box is great -- to which several other commissioners agreed.
There were comments from neighborhood residents and a representative from the Preservation Alliance lamenting being left out of the redesign discussions, and criticizing the secretive, backroom nature of the process.
My impression was that this commission was just going through the motions, and they're ready to rubber stamp anything Druker shows them at this point. It makes me wonder what the point of such a commission is. After all, if a 400' blank black wall could get by them (45 Province), what can't?
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
My favorite part was when they were called out the fact the board's approval of the last design transferred to the new one. Despite the fact no one in their right mind could say the two proposals are the same building.
I stood there against the wall scowling at the transparent bullshit I was hearing until I had to leave the meeting early for another appointment.
My favorite part was when they were called out the fact the board's approval of the last design transferred to the new one. Despite the fact no one in their right mind could say the two proposals are the same building.
I stood there against the wall scowling at the transparent bullshit I was hearing until I had to leave the meeting early for another appointment.
palindrome
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,266
- Reaction score
- 117
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
Is that Andrea Leers of Leers Weinzapfel Associates?
She also apparently said 120 kingston was still 100ft too tall.
Is that Andrea Leers of Leers Weinzapfel Associates?
She also apparently said 120 kingston was still 100ft too tall.
