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

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

I don't recall the Public Garden having a better southern border in the 1970s, when I first got here. This was Park Square, whose highlights were the Playboy Club, Hillbilly Ranch, Sarni Cleaners, and a Trailways bus terminal.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

For those of us who didn't live through the 70s and many others, it doesn't matter how horrendous any part of Boston was then. What's important is what happens now and can happen in the future.

Guess what: Dubai was a real hellhole in the 70s as well. Its current political identity didn't even exist until 1971 with the creation of the United Arab Emirates, and investment into the city-state began in earnest only in 2002. But nobody in Dubai says: "Wait, guys, we're being too ambitious; remember how this was all sand and oil derricks back in the 70s?"

Boston has a whole lot more to speak for itself than Dubai, a place that was devastated just 15 years ago by financial crisis during the first Gulf War. While the Middle East has oil, Boston has the minds that are hopefully at work finding a replacement for oil.

So rather than compare the craptacular Heritage on the Garden or Four Seasons with strip clubs, why not set a higher standard for Boston? And if the BRA is debating whether to allow the destruction of a fairly graceful building on the Common, its standard should be higher than the garbage one of Pelli's lackeys schlopped together in a day down in New Haven.

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/03/dubai/index_01.htm
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

We don't have the option to tear down Heritage or Four Seasons today. I'm just reminding people of the environment in which those were approved -- back in the 1980s. I fully agree with you about the Shreve building, which I 'd like to keep intact.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I'd like to see the Drucker project built on the rest of the block with Shreve's retained and integrated.

However, I certainly hope that at least the facade of Shreve's will be preserved. I suspect that when all is said and done -- {i.e. some years from now when all the public meetings and deals with the Mayor and the BRA have been cut} that some sort of compromise will result.

I think that Drucker has shown over the years that he is basically well meaning and as a local guy he is also aware of history and background

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

I'm still wondering -- why is this project necessary at all? Why not just re-tenant the Shreve's building as it is? It appears to be in good condition, and should command fairly high rents just for its location.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

What's the problem with Heritage on the Garden? Heritage on the Garden, IMP, is an attractive building that fits well in it's location, and was actually ahead of it's time with the retail at it's base, something pretty unusual for residential buildings back then. I've always liked that building and wished the Four Seasons could have been somewhat more imaginative than the mass of red bricks it is though it's a finer looking building than the State Transportation Building and the Moakley building, both of which loom over their respective streets.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Re: "I'm still wondering -- why is this project necessary at all? Why not just re-tenant the Shreve's building as it is? It appears to be in good condition, and should command fairly high rents just for its location."

I think the problem is with things such as utilities, HVAC, elevators -- all those are old or limited and not easy to retrofit in an older building. The rest of the block is not up to the standards of the Shreve's building. I think that the rest of the block should go -- perhaps the project could be redesigned to save Shreve's externally and structurally -- redoing the internals and integrating it into the Glass new structure with significantly greater height than the Shreve?s end.

There could possibly be even a 3 or 4 story glass addition on top of Shreve's that would be recessed back from the street.

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

The elevator in Shreves was just big enough to accomodate the coffin of any dowager who happened to die upstairs. The interior needs a total gut job to be economic.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

tobyjug said:
The elevator in Shreves was just big enough to accomodate the coffin of any dowager who happened to die upstairs.
Click to expand...
They did that fairly regularly?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Egad no. The recladding of every prewar office building in glass is one New York trend Boston does not want to import.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

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

I'm new here but this subject is very interesting to me. I wrote a letter to Ron Druker concerning his project with some suggestions for saving this very attractive building. I suggested that he buy 364 Boylston which is a very ugly 1970's refaced building next door to the one he intends to build and save the Arlington Building with a total gut rehab, placing the mechanicals on top of the new building. If that were to happen he could turn the roof of the Arlington into a private park for the office tenants, overlooking the Public Garden and the church. What an incredible asset for office workers and a marketing coup. It also eliminates concerns about shadows and the wanton destruction of an historic building for which he may not be forgiven. Didn't get a reply but I didn't expect one. The Arlington Building is beautiful now even though its very dirty and hasn't been maintained for quite a while, can you imagine what it would look like with a little TLC?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Wow, that ^ is good initiative (though I do stand by an LVMH-style reimagining of the SCL building, provided the original facade remains :rolleyes:). What is Druker's address, out of curiosity?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I say -- welcome to the discussion

You sound like the kind of well reasoned and thoughtful poster with whom we {or at least I} enjoy discussing matters of all flavors

Keep on posting {another 99 and you can become a senior member}

Westy


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

Someone earlier pointed out that the interior of the former Women's Educational and Industrial Union storefront is quite distinctive and worth saving as well. After walking by it last week, I agree. Additional floors should be added to it rather than demolishing it, if possible.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^^I agree Ron. I was walking in the storm on Tuesday along Boylston St. and, as I walked past the the Women's E and I Union, now full of wonderful Asian furnishings and the Shreve Building's Art Deco bronze gratings low on the facade I was delighted with the richness, texture, and craftsmanship, now missing from nearly every new building. It made the trek in the snow a special delight, something we need in N.E. winter weather.

I can't emphasize more how important the details on street facades are to the city like Boston. Most of the time, one could tell at a glance what was within the building by the street details. The size of windows, the style of the door, the gratings, carvings, etc., all lent a clue as to whether the building was a bank, insurance, retail, or office. These things made walking an experience in itself. (I might suggest, oddly enough, that Disney World understands the need for detailed facades, despite what inside the building. It's Main Street is a reproduction of sorts of Victoriain America; there is the appearance of many buildings and facades. Yet, as soon as you go into one of them, you find they all interconnect within into a huge retail warehouse stuffed with Disney toys and souvenirs. An interesting conceit that works.)

Druker's Heritage on the Garden block, while very successful in many ways, (especially in the upper stories and roofline) took over a block of buildings, that, while dated and getting seedy, had varied facades and a human scale. It's interesting that the building on the end of the block at Haddassa Way was preserved. It had been a bank, I believe, but someone had the foresight to make it into condos and retain the beautiful rhythm of the facade. The next block up, the Four Seasons, is an architectural mess, IMO. The wide-open entrance area, used as a crowded parking lot for wealthy car-owners, the boring brickwork and street windows, and the top-heavy appearance of the facade (due to the odd fenestration and the lack of cornice) make me yearn for the jumble of buildings it replaced....including the old Playboy Club.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Here, here, Padre M.

Cities are experienced on the street. There was a time when buildings (good ones) engaged the street, related to their neighbors and expressed their intentions to passersby. Examples: The Ames, BPL, old Hancock, older city hall, etc. -- we're lucky to have so many examples.

Generally speaking, though not always, modern buildings too often tend to do none of the above well. They are mostly meant to be engaged with and related to from a distance, or enjoyed from the upper levels, preferably the penthouse, where only the select few have access. I love the Hancock, don't get me wrong, but walk by it some blustery day: getting knocked on your keester at its generic entrance is not how I want to be engaged. (Again, I like the Hancock.)

Shreve is a wonderful building. Is it important, no. Will we see its likes again, no. Developers don't see a good value-to-cost relationship in the details another generation found so important, and architects have simply moved on. So what we lose now we lose forever. Is it worth keeping? Well, compared to what's been proposed I would say loudly -- YES.

As an illustration, for whatever it's worth, mention Robert Stern's name to people in the field. Watch the looks you get. All because he often uses a "historic vocabulary," as he called it in his book. Vernacular, we might say. Too it's a bad word these days.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

It's not that bleak

On another part of the Arch Boston there is a thread related to the updating that is going on to the "old" Blackstone" {aka Equity Office} buildings

To take advantage of the once and future boom in commercial real estate older buildings are being updated -- and that means updating their ground floors and in particular their entrances.

Specifically in this context the thread discusses {and has some images of} the new entrances for One Boston Place and the former Keystone Funds Buildings {both 1970's structures} and both that need to do something to be competitive.

Both buildings and some other of the Blackstone properties are having new entrance areas constructed -- with a new attention to detail in materials and including things such as graphics {99 High Street in big letters}.
From the 99 High Street Website www.99high.com/news.html
??The renowned firm of Elkus/Manfredi Architects is transforming the appearance of 99 High. Over the course of the next two years, this distinguished office tower will undergo renovations that will mark it as one of modern corporate elegance.
? An exciting new, monumental portal will set 99 High apart as a building of importance. Large?more in keeping with the scale of the building?and innovative, it will feature a ?jewel box? of mirrored glass highlighting the address and entry.
? Beautiful Colonial Gold granite imported from India will replace the travertine fa?ade and reclad the entry columns, bringing new warmth and vibrancy to the two lower floors of the building?s exterior.
? At street level, the area surrounding the building will be completely reworked with awnings, weathered steel planters and new paving to welcome pedestrians.
? Dramatic new lighting in the main lobby will create an ambience of prestige and elegance.
? Infrastructure systems will be updated for operational efficiency?.?
Will we ever get back to the Art Deco level of fine entrance details in buildings such as {Hilton Hotel, aka the Batterymarch Building at 89 Broad Street, designed by Harold Field Kellogg; 75 Franklin Street, formerly the HQ of State Street Bank, designed by Thomas M. James; Paramount Theater on Washington St., designed by Arthur Bowditch; the United Shoe Machine Building, 160 Federal Street. designed by Parker, Thomas, and Rice; the New England Telephone {aka Verizon Building} on Franklin St, designed by Cram and Ferguson; former Salada Tea Building {now the Grill 23 and Bar restaurant} or earlier masterpieces such as the Cunard, etc?

Perhaps we will not get back there -- but at least there is still hope for something much more in human context than what passed for an entrance in just the last few decades {e.g. West Wing of MFA, by I.M. Pei}.

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

I'll attach Ron Druckers address, he really needs to hear from people who don't think the way he does.

RonaldM.Druker 50 Federal Street Fl 10
Boston, MA 02110

Also, another very important group who is usually screaming about historic preservation is NABB (Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay). Their silence is deafening. They are blinded by their political connections.

NABB
337 Newbury St.
Boston, MA 02115
617-247-3961
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top