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

[stick n move]

I feel like the windows look bigger than expected. The rendering (kind of) had a 501 boylston vibe to it. It even has that same notch near the roof.

The large windows though really just make it look like another low rise office building. The spandrels are limestone, if they had made them thicker it wouldnt have been too bad. I’m sure they really didnt have a choice though as class a office these days demands floor to ceiling windows, even though its horrendously inefficient and looks boring.

 

[curcuas]

I work around the corner. Even incomplete, it is clear this building is stunning. The materials are excellent and the glass really pops.

The endless haterade being spilled is unnecessary. There's pages of documentation on why the old building was unsupportable. The idea that *design review* would somehow make anything new better despite legions of counterexamples, including the new building on Newbury at Dartmouth around the corner is absolutely wild.

Cities change and in this case the developer is doing a good job.

 

[kmp1284]

Looks like Ronnie’s beefing up his payroll of useful idiots. Seriously though, shitty taste and low standards aren’t thing to be proud of.

 

[shmessy]

Looks like Ronnie’s beefing up his payroll of useful idiots. Seriously though, shitty taste and low standards aren’t thing to be proud of.

I don't like this building and mourn the loss of the old one, but was that really necessary?

 

[bigpicture7]

My problem is that I am such a sucker for frameless corner glazing. Sigh.

 

[Charlie_mta]

This building is on a par with the Whoop building in Kenmore Square for an ugly, cheap-looking building dumped into the middle of a neighborhood of fine older buildings.

 

[kmp1284]

I don't like this building and mourn the loss of the old one, but was that really necessary?

Absolutely. And that was extraordinarily tame.

 

[curcuas]

This building is on a par with the Whoop building in Kenmore Square for an ugly, cheap-looking building dumped into the middle of a neighborhood of fine older buildings.

Here's the thing: It is a *much* nicer looking building in person than the Whoop building. It manifestly does *not* look cheap --- it looks like some of the new, slightly historicist modern construction on the Upper East Side in NYC. Dislike it all you like, but cheap it ain't.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Here's the thing: It is a *much* nicer looking building in person than the Whoop building. It manifestly does *not* look cheap --- it looks like some of the new, slightly historicist modern construction on the Upper East Side in NYC. Dislike it all you like, but cheap it ain't.

I agree the Whoop building is in a league of its own, with its pinkish faux brick paper thin panels, one of the cheapest looking buildings I've seen in my lifetime. This Shreve, Crump & Low redevelopment bothers me because it looks like a 1980s DC agency HQ building, or something from a Rte. 128 office park of the same era. Which in and of itself isn't so bad, but in the context of this classic, iconic locale, it is a bit jarring. But I agree, the Whoop definitely is far, far worse.