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

BeeLine said:
Just a reminder of the current state of this site and what this proposal will replace.

IMG_0572 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_0575 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_0576 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_0577 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_0578 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_0582 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Of the 3 buildings involved:
  1. keep the facades on both Boston and Arlington for the Shreve"" all the way to the roof
  2. 1st floor on Boylston only for the other two
    1. especially the one furthest from Arlington [with big Retail Space for Lease sign] -- I'm fairly sure that the 3rd one got truncated probably during the depression​

Set back one bay thickness each way and put the glass box on top -- even give it a couple of more floors to compensate for the loss of the ground floors and the set backs​
 
whighlander said:
Of the 3 buildings involved:
  1. keep the facades on both Boston and Arlington for the Shreve"" all the way to the roof
  2. 1st floor on Boylston only for the other two
    1. especially the one furthest from Arlington [with big Retail Space for Lease sign] -- I'm fairly sure that the 3rd one got truncated probably during the depression​

Set back one bay thickness each way and put the glass box on top -- even give it a couple of more floors to compensate for the loss of the ground floors and the set backs​
Click to expand...
 
Speechless. I got to visit the BPDA last summer and it's filled with graduates of Harvard GSD and other reputable urban planning schools; people who I assume would share a lot of opinions with me concerning urbanism. How does this happen?
 
This is worse than the one we just lost in Kenmore, or the Dainty Dot, or the Times Building. Yikes. They're bringing "Suffolk Downs" architecture to the Back Bay, only they're not replacing an empty wasteland to do it. If we keep allowing this to happen, one parcel at a time, one day there will be nothing left and our city will no longer be a gem.
 
theSil said:
Speechless. I got to visit the BPDA last summer and it's filled with graduates of Harvard GSD and other reputable urban planning schools; people who I assume would share a lot of opinions with me concerning urbanism. How does this happen?
Click to expand...

A mayor who’s essentially owned by the building and construction unions.
 
A uberwealthy developer decides to tear down a beautiful building and replace it with a piece of shit and of course it the union's fault. I love this site.
 
statler said:
A uberwealthy developer decides to tear down a beautiful building and replace it with a piece of shit and of course it the union's fault. I love this site.
Click to expand...
It’s the Women’s Industrial Union facade I’ll miss for its own sake. The rest I’ll miss mostly because the replacement is worse.
 
The city is slowly being eroded. With the amount of empty lots and shitty buildings that could be replaced in the area its unacceptable. What the hell is going on?

Even 40 trinity... its next to a pos garage thats already going to be developed, the cancelled copley air rights, empty pike air rights, and a few empty lots... yet theyre knocking down a perfectly nice piece of the fabric of the city.. its blasphemy.

Ill NEVER forget 319 A st in fort point knocking down a beautiful fort point brick building (theres already not many to begin with) yet they knocked it down with parking lots literally next door and in every direction around the building as far as can see. I know why it happened, but its ridiculous and needs to be changed asap.
 
statler said:
A uberwealthy developer decides to tear down a beautiful building and replace it with a piece of shit and of course it the union's fault. I love this site.
Click to expand...

It is not the unions but I do blame the process. Billionaires are going to billionaire in a free-market system. The role of government is to protect society, their well-being and values from market failure. I don't blame the owner of this parcel as this is clearly the best financial decision for them, in the same position with our own money on the line I suspect most of us would not be willing to forgo millions of potential profit unless forced to. I do blame the of process for failing to protect a building that should be protected and demanding a higher standard of development.
 
statler said:
A uberwealthy developer decides to tear down a beautiful building and replace it with a piece of shit and of course it the union's fault. I love this site.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the unions but rather the mayor and his appointed board for the lack of transparency and putting union interests(construction jobs, ergo campaign resources and votes for Mahty) ahead of those of the city at virtually every opportunity.
 
Or....we could blame the person who is actively deciding to tear down a classic building. There is no law of nature forcing him to do so. He could just...not. It's well within his power to make that decision. This is 100% on him. Full stop.
 
theSil said:
Speechless. I got to visit the BPDA last summer and it's filled with graduates of Harvard GSD and other reputable urban planning schools; people who I assume would share a lot of opinions with me concerning urbanism. How does this happen?
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that the BPDA project manager for this building did not attend Harvard; with respect to his background, he is pretty much of a cipher.
 
DZH22 said:
This is worse than the one we just lost in Kenmore, or the Dainty Dot, or the Times Building. Yikes. They're bringing "Suffolk Downs" architecture to the Back Bay, only they're not replacing an empty wasteland to do it. If we keep allowing this to happen, one parcel at a time, one day there will be nothing left and our city will no longer be a gem.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how these buildings go under any circumstance--
but we're saving 133 Federal St, and 1/2 of the State Service Ctr?
wtf is going on here?
Can anything be done?
 
At least they appear to have gone straight to the VE'd version, which saves many of us from the "Ahhh....oh....ugh." that is watching a project slowly stripped of what was approved.
 
I dreaded this day a decade ago when the "for rent" sign went up on the Shreve building. It never came down....another farce waiting to happen by the greedy owner. Then the first pics appeared of the new building with rounded corners and some set backs...Now this...a glass and steel box in the middle of the Back Bay. All after the painstaking efforts to design an appropriate condo block next door. I too will miss the Women's Industrial Union facade...and the swan over the door (long since gone). But Shreves and the bronze and stone detail. We live in a fat, money-grubbing, oligarchal culture that welcomes every opportunity to throw aesthetics out the window in favor of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
 
The list of things we've lost under Brian Golden's leadership is sadly noteworthy. We are nibbling away at the fabric of our city. One does not actually recognize diminishment - a block, a neighborhood, a city - until it's too late. This is not hyperbole. It's time for the Mayor to fire Golden.
 
kmp1284 said:
BPDA approved. I had been checking periodically to see if they’d posted the comments and they still haven’t but I guess they’re moot now.

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
Click to expand...

They had already approved the project. This was approving the NPC - they can't unapprove the demolishing of the building, they can only force them to build the first shitty design they submitted.

The City should take this site by eminent domain and sell it to a less nasty developer. The legal fees would be worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top