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

This corner is going to turn into an empty lot/mini Filenes hole for the next 5-10 years, isn’t it? 😞 All sorts of bad vibes with this one.
 
Last edited:
This is a link to the Boston Preservation Alliance's decade-long review of the proposed project.
https://www.bostonpreservation.org/advocacy-project/350-boylston-street

Scroll to the bottom and there is a link (see below) to a three page letter to the BPDA dated October 2019, with specific comments on the design.
https://www.bostonpreservation.org/... Alliance re 350 Boylston Street 10.17.19.pdf

In the PNF, Druker states that a series of meetings were held with the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB), the Back Bay Association, and the Boston Preservation Alliance (BPA).

From the PNF:
The renovation and reuse of all the existing structures, renovation and reuse of only the Arlington Building, and retention of only the Arlington Building façade were also considered. All of these alternatives yielded buildings with significantly less floor area and parking than the as-of-right proposal, which in combination with greater construction costs incurred to work with and around existing buildings and foundations, make these reuse schemes economically infeasible. Technical complications due to the existing buildings’ bearing and fire wall locations and differing floor levels will not allow for large unencumbered floor plates necessary for a feasible contemporary office building in any of the options that reused the existing buildings. Reuse of existing facades would be extremely difficult and costly due to the inability to use temporary external support of the façade because this weight cannot be placed on the existing MBTA Green line tunnel, utilities, and steam main located below the sidewalks on Boylston and Arlington streets.

The Proponent also believes that possible alternatives that would retain only the façades of one of the existing buildings lack the appropriate architectural integrity that this important location deserves and requires. Furthermore, retaining only façade portions of one of the existing buildings would likely require dismantling and reconstruction; activities that would have prohibitive costs associated with them, and that are generally not considered acceptable means of preservation.
Click to expand...
[Bolding mine.]

In essence, Druker's assertion (of which their appears to be no rebuttal from looking at the record) is that retaining the existing facade would necessitate a repeat of what was done with the Little building, where that building's existing facade was completely removed, and recast with new materials. The existing facade for SC&L is 100+ years old, and I suspect much of it is not salvageable.
 
It is completely unacceptable that Boston has allowed this façade to be demolished.
I'm currently in DC where its very apparent they hold developers to a much higher standard and incorporate facades into new projects.
 
Really remarkable how despite all the documented evidence, people on this board focused on building and architecture are still clinging to magical stories and anecdotes about how this was salvageable. Cities change. We need them to else we will freeze ourselves into amber and destroy the vitality and future of this great place.
 
curcuas said:
Really remarkable how despite all the documented evidence, people on this board focused on building and architecture are still clinging to magical stories and anecdotes about how this was salvageable. Cities change. We need them to else we will freeze ourselves into amber and destroy the vitality and future of this great place.
Click to expand...

Building technology and restoration/salvage capabilities also change. See Emerson's amazing rehab of the Little Building. They 3D laser-scanned the whole thing and replicated many of the pieces. You'd never know if you weren't looking (really hard) for it. There needs to be a will.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Building technology and restoration/salvage capabilities also change. See Emerson's amazing rehab of the Little Building. They 3D laser-scanned the whole thing and replicated many of the pieces. You'd never know if you weren't looking (really hard) for it. There needs to be a will.
Click to expand...

There needs to be a will, and there also needs to be a pot of money. Based on a Massachusetts bond issuance for Emerson, which included the Little Building, the re-construction cost for the Little Building was probably $175-$185 million. Emerson bought the Little Building for $5 million. But Emerson doesn't engage in the same financial calculus as a private sector developer. It has a guaranteed, predictable income stream from the Little Building for years to come, allowing for some measure of altruism.

The Embassy of Mexico in Washington. Preservation to what end?

440px-MJK48485_Mexican_Embassy_%28Washington_DC%29.jpg


The 19th Century building directly beyond the tree is where Lincoln died. Buildings similar to it in mass and height were demolished. No private sector altruism here.

xRPAxXC.png
 
The acquiescence of this demolition by Boston's so-called preservationist organizations seriously calls their credibility into question. It really does seem like the true mission of Boston's various "preservationist" groups is to preserve parking spaces, grand window views of the lucky few and artificial housing scarcity.
 
Last edited:
Which group has that on their agenda? Seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
Beantropolis said:
The acquiesce of this demolition by Boston's so-called preservationist organizations seriously calls their credibility into question. It really does seem like the true mission of Boston's various "preservationist" groups is to preserve parking spaces, grand window views of the lucky few and artificial housing scarcity.
Click to expand...

Please. This hyperventilating is silly, generally speaking--and particularly ridiculous given the recent leadership change at BPA, and all that may portend in terms of potential new trajectories for the organization.

Have you even studied the BPA's page for 350 Boylston? Instead of unfocused ranting and raving, why don't you give a thoughtful, annotated critique of BPA's view on 350 Boylston project, along with any other content on their website that may or may not support your curmudgeonly manifesto...
 
Blackbird said:
To exactly that end. The one in the photo.
Click to expand...

And that end is one of grotesque cynicism.

"Sure, we'll obey the letter of the law--and at the same time we'll deliver a giant bleep you to the community by developing this hideous juxtaposition."

(In other words, not that it's worth anything, but I 100% agree with stellarfun on this one...)
 
DBM said:
And that end is one of grotesque cynicism.

"Sure, we'll obey the letter of the law--and at the same time we'll deliver a giant bleep you to the community by developing this hideous juxtaposition."

(In other words, not that it's worth anything, but I 100% agree with stellarfun on this one...)
Click to expand...

You’re over complicating things: in one instance, some nice, old facades get preserved. In the other,you just get the hulking concrete with nothing else.

Not everyone has the mind of a post-modern starchitect. I’m sure a lot of regular people walk by that building in DC and appreciate the juxtaposition.
 
Blackbird said:
You’re over complicating things: in one instance, some nice, old facades get preserved. In the other,you just get the hulking concrete with nothing else.

Not everyone has the mind of a post-modern starchitect. I’m sure a lot of regular people walk by that building in DC and appreciate the juxtaposition.
Click to expand...
The Embassy of Mexico building is located in an area that lies outside of the design review purview of the Commission of Fine Arts, a Federal agency. A Federal review of new construction occurs if a project lies within, fronts, or abuts (directly, or proximately) the geographic land boundaries set out by the Shipstead Luce Act. Those boundaries, in the District of Columbia, roughly are:
  • the grounds of the Capitol
  • the grounds of the White House
  • the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue extending from the Capitol to the White House
  • Lafayette Park
  • the Mall Park System
  • Southwest Waterfront
  • Rock Creek and Potomac Parkways
  • Rock Creek Park
  • the National Zoo
The Embassy of Mexico is on Pennsylvania Ave., but west of the White House and outside the areal jurisdiction of Shipstead Luce. The current members of the Commission of Fine Arts and their bios can be found here.
https://www.cfa.gov/about-cfa/who-we-are

While I certainly can't speak for the Commission, but having some familiarity with their reviews, I doubt that the Commission would have approved the as-built design for the Embassy of Mexico.
________________________________

This is a tangent about preserving facades of buildings deemed to be historic. The structure pictured below is located in the District of Columbia, a former Federal government industrial building, (1) built before 1950, and (2) located within a National Historic Landmark historic district. The combination of (1) and (2) made it 'historic', and deserving of protection. The style is Art Moderne. The architect was William Dewey Foster, the architect for the Harry S. Truman building (State Department building) in Washington. A brief bio here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dewey_Foster

QABQcZn.png

Note the stain on the brick from severe rust-jacking..

wWlUjhZ.png

West facade, and front entrance (and only entrance for employees).

kKvzhPj.png

South elevation, and yard area. The wall at image right is an elaborate flood-protection wall, much of the visible height is below grade. The red brick building at image left is the Four Seasons hotel, of similar architectural style and vintage to the one on Boylston St.

9WK3PK1.png

Approved design, west façade and front entrance.

o1JlQKs.png

Approved design, south elevation. A publicly accessible, one-acre park (community benefit) will be built atop two levels of private parking.
The design architect is Sir David Adjaye. The landscape architect is Laurie Olin. When completed, the building will be the Residences at the Four Seasons.

Very long story short. Preservationists sought to preserve the structure's facades, arguing that the structure is historic, and deserving protection and preservation under the law. The Old Georgetown Board, (OGB) a separate but sub-ordinate entity of the Commission of Fine Arts, voted to preserve the building. (The OGB is comprised of three architect members, with jurisdiction for design review of projects within the Georgetown National Historic Landmark historic district. The three architects are not members of the Commission of Fine Arts.)

The Commission of Fine Arts, led by its then Chairman, Alex Krieger, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, approved the proposed design, and, de facto, the demolition of most of the structure. (One of the OGB architects had objected to any demolition, but urged the owners to do something about the rust-jacking stains.) There was then a subsequent hearing before an administrative law judge (with jurisdiction for historic preservation in DC), and who ruled in favor of demolition Preservationists appealed the ruling of the administrative law judge to the DC Court of Appeals, which unanimously upheld the determination of the administrative law judge.

The approved design will preserve the west façade only, and demolish the remainder of the building. Two different structural engineering firms, acting independently, concluded that the brick forming the east, south, and north facades was severely damaged by rust-jacking. (The brick encased the steel framing; the steel framing had no lateral support; and three sides of the exterior were, in essence, a balloon enveloping a hollow volume, having a single floor for the industrial machinery.) One of the structural engineers opined that all the damaged and deteriorated brick could be replaced, and the façade appearance retained.

Aside from the rust-jacking, the structure is heavily contaminated with hazardous pollutants. Contamination that is likely much worse than the contamination found at the old power house at the Charlestown Navy Yard (which is being demolished), and at the boiler house for the South Boston Edison Power Plant (also being demolished) Subsequent to the assessments done by the two structural engineering consultants, extensive mercury contamination was discovered. With that discovery, there is no longer any alternative, adaptive future re-use of this building. If the structure was not being re-developed, then the Federal government would likely be financially responsible for demolishing all of it.

That any re-development is occurring at all is because the future owners of 70+ tres expensive condo residences are paying for it.
 
The goal is not to forcibly retain the old for the sake of saying its old. We know there are hazardous materials, inept structures, leaky and/or impossible to insulate exterior wall constructions, etc., and also know that the present-day best use case (for a given land parcel) may be incompatible with what's on there from the past. Rather, the goal is to retain the character, not of any one specific land parcel, but of a street/block/neighborhood - with character loosely defined as "what you can't get anywhere else, and what will be forever gone if lost from Boston."

We have seen historic motifs physically moved to nearby parcels better suited for them (see: Lesley university), scanned and replicated with modern materials and artfully recreated on-site (see: 3D scanning, re-casting, and acid wash rapid patina, etc) (see: Little Building, Myles Standish Hall), or, with less effectiveness but still better than nothing, rebuilding structures in old styles (see: Mass + Main). The Mexican Embassy thing looks forced; moving those two facades to elsewhere nearby may have been a better solution that could have been even more effective at retaining neighborhood character. We live in a technological age where we can make something look a certain way almost wherever we want; true, if we under-spend on such efforts, it looks "Disney-fied" (which is worse than just demo'ing the thing); but there are enough examples of it being done right to suggest that at least some such efforts to retain historic architectural character of a neighborhood can succeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top