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

[Padre Mike]

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

This issue is not "worthiness", because that is a purely subjective concept. It is as trite as the concept of "world-class". The issue is must be cast in objective terms; whether or not a building adds or subtracts from the historic quality of a particular city, especially an older city, such as Boston. Such a quality has developed over centuries like a patina on cherished furniture. The progression of Boston's development since the moment Winthrop and Co. came ashore Shawmut peninsula in 1630 in search of clean water (at the present location of Spring Street), through the next nearly 400 years is the issue. Boston did not spring up suddenly in a wilderness during the last century. It did not develop around a grid pattern of streets set down within the first 20 years of its life. What makes Boston unique is it's history of gradual development over many architectural, cultural, economic, and transportation eras. It is a history of tearing down hills, filling in coves, trucking in fill, annexing surrounding communities, rebuilding after tragic fires, and abusing "urban development" and eminent domain. It is a history of residential neighborhoods becoming commercialized, of immigrant populations coming in and moving out into suburbs, of cultural, commercial, educational, and religious institutions as old as the nation itself being founded by enlighted individuals from Boston.

Boston is more that a bunch of streets that are crying out to be "modernized" or "unified". It should be a city that goes beyond subjective opinions to what is objectively appropriate and beautiful architecturally for a particular neighborhood or district. This need not exclude modern architecture and most likely ought to exclude pseudo-historical forms empty of meaning. I think most of us agree that too often the NIMBY mentality, along with politically corrupt officials and developers, have held sway in Boston, depending upon how economically desperate Boston seemed to appear. Sometimes this has actually been good for the city. I've witnessed, however, that on balance it has been a negative for Boston in the past 40 years. Just look at how preposterously the South Boston waterfront is shaping up. Boston's layers of history must be respected if we are not simply to become "New York City Light," or worse, "Dallas-on-the-Charles."

 

[Beton Brut]

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

If people are honestly making a fuss about that Randolph (sic) building downtown being demolished, but no one is making a fuss about this, then it ruins all credibility that they may have.

For the record:

As one of the resident boosters of Modernism, I say the Shreve's building is a keeper. High-end eatery on the ground floor, boutique hotel above. If Gehry comes near it, kick him in the berries.

And on the former home of the WEIU, I'm with Lurker and Padre Mike -- the interior and the quality of light was very cool. Would make for a cool Jazz club.

The Pelli proposal is tone-deaf architectural porridge. Utter rubbish. Please don't...

The flaw of the Shreve's building is its size, and how this plays into the economics of an adaptive re-use. But it's finely detailed, historically significant, and it obeys the rules of the street. It's a no-brainer that it ought to stay.

My desire to see "difficult" buildings like City Hall and the Hurley preserved and revitalized comes from a different place. These buildings behave differently, and I admit in many ways, incorrectly, but their numerous flaws should not justify a death-sentence. Answer me this: have we built anything as imaginative and intellectually rigorous as either of these buildings in the last thirty years?

 

[kennedy]

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

The one reason to wipe a once-imaginative building such as City Hall, is the potential for a building, equally as creative, and with better adatability to different functions.

 

[justin]

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

The one reason to wipe a once-imaginative building such as City Hall, is the potential for a building, equally as creative, and with better adatability to different functions.

^Which potential Boston has by all appearances lost, and should first prove it has re-acquired it on a blank slate like the Seaport before messing with the good stuff we got.

The issue is must be cast in objective terms; whether or not a building adds or subtracts from the historic quality of a particular city, especially an older city, such as Boston.

I'm all with you for saving Shreve; I might even allow that one can 'objectively' judge the impact of a building on the historic quality. But valuing history is in itself just as subjective a preference as that for 'world-class' or 'worthy', if only less vague. I could equally well rhapsodize about throwing off the shackles of the past and forging a brave new world. The loudest argument usually wins.

justin

 

[Ron Newman]

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

I could equally well rhapsodize about throwing off the shackles of the past and forging a brave new world. The loudest argument usually wins.

And indeed, that argument was quite loud and largely won the day in the 1950s and 60s. It began to lose as people looked at the results and didn't like what they saw. The only real success from that period is the Prudential Center, and that only after several decades of continual tinkering. The rest of that period's local legacy -- Government Center, Charles River Park, other urban renewal projects, the elevated Central Artery -- most people now regard as mistakes.

 

[statler]

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

I suppose the same argument was made during 20's & 30's in NYC and that seemed to turn out ok.

The best solution (as always) is striking a balance between old and new. Saving what should be saved and replacing what should be replaced.

The trick is figuring out which is which.

 

[kennedy]

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

I suppose the same argument was made during 20's & 30's in NYC and that seemed to turn out ok.

The best solution (as always) is striking a balance between old and new. Saving what should be saved and replacing what should be replaced.

The trick is figuring out which is which.

Very well said. And, the SCL building is definitely worth saving. Not replacing with some crap with some nice veneer on the insides.

 

[statler]

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

BRA Gets Chance to Consider Druker?s Plan for Shreve Site
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

Rendering courtesy Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and CBT Architects
This artist?s rendering depicts the 221,230-square-foot, mixed-use building that The Druker Co. has proposed for lower Boylston Street in Boston.

As Back Bay residents battle construction of a pair of towers at the Prudential Center, a developer has filed plans to replace a former jewelry store overlooking the Boston Public Garden with a 9-story building.

Ronald Druker, president of The Druker Co., hopes to build a 221,230-square-foot building at Boylston and Arlington streets. If approved, it would include eight floors of Class A offices, 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 6,000-square-foot health spa and below-grade parking. Banker & Tradesman was the first to report the proposal last fall.

According to a filing with the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city planning agency that must approve the mixed-use development, Druker would raze the former Shreve Crump & Low building at 330 Boylston St. and three other structures ? his company owns all four ? to make way for the new block.

?The project will improve retail vitality and provide first-class office space in a highly visible and accessible location,? states the document filed with the BRA. ?The area will be enhanced by the urban design and architectural character provided by a new signature building designed by world-class architects who are sensitive to its architectural neighbors, including the Arlington Street Church and the Public Garden.?

In addition, the project summary said the building?s proposed design will ?capitalize? on the unique site. ?A corner location provides a unique opportunity ? With diagonal views and frontage on the Public Garden is a singular opportunity that the design addresses by placing a unique, rounded glazed bay, which emphasizes and reinforces the importance of this prime location,? the document states.

The ground level will feature a granite facade with wooden storefronts and a lobby entry. Sidewalk improvements along Boylston Street will be consistent with the city?s standards for the neighborhood, the document said. The new development is expected to generate $1.8 million in annual property taxes and $1.1 million in linkage funds to the city.

The BRA has established an Impact Advisory Group to review the proposal. The 13-member panel appointed by officials will consider mitigation impacts caused by the development. A public meeting on the plan is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 17, at 6 p.m. at the Boston Public Library.

Mark Slater, an IAG member, said he was not impressed by the rendering of the proposed building. ?It looks like a rectangular brick building and I have no idea whether the project has merit or not,? he said.

Slater, a former president of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, said he also is concerned about the construction of another large building on Boylston Street.

?We are worried that the BRA is effectively allowing the larger boulevards in Boston to be turned into concrete canyons,? he said. ?I worry that?s what the Druker building will do to lower Boylston Street. I am not opposed to new construction and I realize that some will have to be tall. But the scale and intimacy in Boston are being thrown out the window for the sake of real estate taxes.?

Jessica Shumaker, a BRA spokeswoman, declined to answer Slater?s charges. Instead she said, ?We look forward to meeting with the community and hearing their thoughts and concerns on the project.?

?A Real Plus?

John Shope, another IAG member, noted that the former jewelry store is vacant and he favors active retail on the ground floor at the site.

?This will be a prominent building in a prominent location,? he said. ?I like the idea of having an attractive building with lots of people coming and going, and lots of retail. It could be a real plus for the city.?

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he likes what he?s seen so far, but like any project it will require community review.

?It has a ways to go before the BRA approves it, but it certainly looks like something that will meet the muster of the neighborhoods,? Menino said.

Druker?s Boston-based real estate company is best known for its large, urban mixed-use developments. One of its most recent projects is Atelier|505, a mixed-use development adjacent to the Boston Center for the Arts, at Tremont and Berkeley streets. It opened two years ago with 103 units of luxury condominiums, shops and restaurants.

In addition, the company has completed the Heritage on the Garden, an upscale complex on Boylston Street that features residential, retail and office suites across from the Public Garden. In 1971, the firm built the Colonnade Hotel on Huntington Avenue.

Druker?s proposal comes as several projects are in the works for the Back Bay and the Prudential Center. The Clarendon, a luxury condominium and apartment tower, is under construction near the John Hancock Tower. In addition, the 13-story Mandarin Oriental Boston hotel is scheduled to open this summer next to Lord & Taylor on Boylston Street. The $230 million project will add 168 guestrooms and the property will be part of a mixed-use complex with first-floor retail and condominiums on the upper floors.

Another proposal that has not yet been filed with the BRA is a new tower at Copley Place. The Simon Property Group is considering a mix of condominiums and retail uses in front of the Neiman Marcus store at the corner of Stuart and Dartmouth streets. At the other end of the Back Bay, Berklee College of Music is considering plans for a dormitory.

Earlier this year, Boston Properties and Avalon Bay Communities filed plans for a $192 million proposal that calls for a 35-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street across from the Boston Public Library and construction of a 19-story office building at 888 Boylston St., adjacent to the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention. The plan has faced fierce opposition from neighbors who say the buildings are out of scale in the historic neighborhood.

NLA

 

[statler]

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

?This will be a prominent building in a prominent location,? he said. ?I like the idea of having an attractive building with lots of people coming and going, and lots of retail. It could be a real plus for the city.?

You can have that without destroying what is there now.
While I'm (obviously) not opposed to new construction in the city, the important criteria is whether or not the new is an upgrade over the old.
From the looks of the renderings so far I'd say - no.
If for no other reason than the footprint is far too large

 

[atlantaden]

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

You can have that without destroying what is there now.
While I'm (obviously) not opposed to new construction in the city, the important criteria is whether or not the new is an upgrade over the old.
From the looks of the renderings so far I'd say - no.
If for no other reason than the footprint is far too large

Quick question, if you feel this footprint is far too large, then you would have opposed both Heritage on the Garden and the Four Season's Hotel which are right next door, along with the Mandarin?

 

[Ron Newman]

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

If this building were simply re-rented out in its current condition, it would have "lots of people coming and going, and lots of retail", and that would "be a real plus for the city". A tear-down and rebuild is in no way necessary to achieve this worthy goal.

 

[Ron Newman]

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

Quick question, if you feel this footprint is far too large, then you would have opposed both Heritage on the Garden and the Four Season's Hotel which are right next door, along with the Mandarin?

Heritage and Four Seasons (and the State Transportation Building) replaced a largely derelict and run-down area of little architectural merit. That is certainly not true of the Shreve building.

 

[czsz]

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

The issue here isn't scale - the new building doesn't stray too far from the rest of the Boylston streetwall. The issue is historic preservation.

I'm disappointed that neither the NIMBYs nor the media are bringing that up. You would think from the B&T article that it's being built on a vacant lot.

 

[ablarc]

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

^ Being a boulevard potentially on a grand scale, I think Boylston Street is better equipped to absorb blockbusters like this than, say, Newbury Street would be.

Shreve, Crump and Low's loss would be a big pity, but so, imo, was the loss of the building one block up with the glass bays that Stern replaced. Though acceptable, his building was not an improvement on what was there, and there was not a murmur of protest.

Similarly, this building by Pelli is not really an improvement over Shreve, Crump and Low --though you could make the case that it replaces some other buildings that don't contain enough space to realize the potential of this stretch of Boylston Street.

Could be worse --and at least it's new. And it fits right in with the new Boylston Street as exemplified by atlantaden's list.

What I do regret is loss of the suave, urbane early 20th Century townscape that exists in Shreve's vicinity --like going back in time to the film noir era.

 

[statler]

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

Quick question, if you feel this footprint is far too large, then you would have opposed both Heritage on the Garden and the Four Season's Hotel which are right next door, along with the Mandarin?

All of them (especially the Mandarin) could have been better designed with smaller footprints (with corresponding increases in height of course).

I'm not opposed to the project per se, just the destruction of a better building and the thoughtless design of the new one.
Throw it on an empty lot somewhere in the city and I'd just shrug.

 

[ablarc]

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

Heritage and Four Seasons (and the State Transportation Building) replaced a largely derelict and run-down area of little architectural merit. That is certainly not true of the Shreve building.

And that is a scar on the townscape. At least Pelli's building isn't ugly.

 

[justin]

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

^It's not?

 

[itchy]

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

Pelli's building does look pretty lackluster, and certainly is the kind of big, squat, dumb (sounds juvenile, but it's really the best word for this) architecture that Boston has too much of.

Shreve, Crump & Low is a fairly nice building, but if it were being replaced by a svelte, 40-story apartment tower I wouldn't be too disappointed. Instead, Druker wants to build yet another Duck Tour boat of a clunker on Boylston Street.

Beyond the fact that large, monolithic buildings seldom help a community, the stretch of Boylston opposite the Public Gardens is already weighted down with the Four Seasons, Heritage on the Garden and other late-1980s mistakes (what's the building that houses PF Chang's?)-- hardly an appropriate border to the Public Garden, which could/should be one of the most historic and beautiful places in the country.

Today's Robert McCloskey might as well be writing about ducklings roosting in Atlanta or Orlando.

 

[itchy]

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

The IAG, by the way, seems pretty impressionable.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to organize a media campaign to publicize the building's history, perhaps enrolling celebrities who have chosen to live in Boston/Cambridge (e.g., John Malkovich).

The unfortunate thing is that Pelli's building could be worse -- and luxury office space is always a boon. It's a shame Druker couldn't have earmarked a less elegant building and a less-important corner for his middling-but-needed offices. And the media already seem to be erroneously linking possible opposition to it with protests against other, totally unrelated projects.

 

[Ron Newman]

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

The State Transportation Building is not lovely, but I like the way it links an otherwise dead-end alley off Boylston to Stuart Street, during both day and night-time hours. The retail and food-court use of the first floor is something that other government buildings should emulate.