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

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

P.S. Per the BBJ story, Druker was saying the property was in the black in 2013.

Per City of Boston Assessing, for 330-360 Boylston (4 separate parcels), Druker has to pay a combined tax of, for this fiscal year:

$740,000

But: he has approx. 85,000 sf of rentable space (guesstimate based on the 90,000 sf+ of total building structure Assessing says the 4 parcels have) to play with there. Say he has $110,000 (very generous?) in additional expenses for those 4 parcels each year: utilities, a property manager, etc.

That's still only $850,000. Which means he only needs some tenant(s) combination that gets him to $10 psf to keep the 4 parcels in the black.

So, it doesn't actually strike me as that much of a burden, necessarily, to find a big tenant who, for whatever "blocking maneuver"-style reason (or otherwise), will happily pay $10 psf or so in multiyear leases that deliberately keep the building unoccupied?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Preserve that building!!! And the little gem next door.

The one next to that one? (Tweeter, Etc. sign) - - - THAT'S the one to demolish and build up. Keep the historic character buildings, replace the crappy ones.

I couldn't shiv a git about the developer's business interests - - the CITY is what is in high demand and should dictate.
 
Re: 334-364 Boylston Street | Block Redevelopment (Rumor)

Interesting possible inside information, but perhaps would be better if the Mods moved it inside this thread:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1835

I really hope they keep much of the Shreve building and the narrow jewel next door. The other crappy one would be no loss.
 
^^ I merged the threads after he posted that.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

shmessy said:
Preserve that building!!! And the little gem next door.

The one next to that one? (Tweeter, Etc. sign) - - - THAT'S the one to demolish and build up. Keep the historic character buildings, replace the crappy ones.

I couldn't shiv a git about the developer's business interests - - the CITY is what is in high demand and should dictate.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't seem well suited as a facadectomy... but if you could preserve it all as some type podium, then perhaps. i am astonished this/these building was even being considered for demo/replacement.
 
Can the city make him sell this property?I think thats the point we're at isnt it? The whole building is empty and slowly falling into disrepair isnt it? I know the groundfloor is empty. How long before there's a "fire" here because the guy wants his way? The city shouldnt allow this stuff
 
^ the City would need to prove the owner has willfully allowed the property to fall into such a state of disrepair that it endangers the public and/or neighboring structures. Even then, half-assed piecemeal fixes would suffice in the City's eyes.
 
I was somewhat ambivalent on the recent corner demolition in Kenmore Square. That being said, this is completely unacceptable here.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
How long before there's a "fire" here....
Click to expand...
Brad Plaid said:
This is going too far. It's reckless, irresponsible speculation.
Click to expand...

"reckless, irresponsible speculation....."

Not sure this is referring to Suffolk's comment -- or to knocking down this beautiful bldg. In the case of fire, i don't think we'll see an conflagration anytime soon.... but in the 60s/70s/80's, fire (sure seemed) the preferred method used for evicting tenants. :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Here we go again, according to Curbed Boston. It was a terrible idea 10 years ago and an awful design for the location. And it still is. With all the fuss about more contextual building near the Public Garden, and at least the use of some red brick, we end up with a Seaport cube plopped down across from Arlington St. Church and the Back Bay. Apparently there will be some retail, but also a half block of boring, blank windows, and probably another bank, which adds nothing to the retail experience. It's not like Drucker is starving for $$. He's already gained a tax break the last ten years for maintaining a non-profitable building. Isn't this his MO around the city? I seem to recall he owns several historic parcels that have been nearly constantly empty for the past 40 years on Bromfield St.
 
As Beton Brut has posted elsewhere, this project has a public meeting at the Library next Monday. The Boston Preservation Alliance is getting the word out, so hopefully it's an... um... unfriendly crowd. I've also commented to the BPDA on the project. It was a succinct comment.

In so many words, this project should be dropkicked into the sewer it crawled out of.

350 Boylston Street | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top