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

Awful. Fortunately it's so utterly bland and forgettable maybe someone in 60 years will consider replacing it and saving far off future generations having to suffer its presence.
 
393b40 said:
Fortunately it's so utterly bland and forgettable maybe someone in 60 years will consider replacing it and saving far off future generations having to suffer its presence.
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that 60 years from now, people will argue that the building is historically significant. I won't argue that this is any kind of gem, but an honest discussion requires us to acknowledge that the predecessor wasn't so great, either. It was built cheaply, and with a tacky facade. It was old and people were accustomed to it. That doesn't mean it was noteworthy.
 
type001 said:
They’re reluctantly growing on me, because deep down inside I believe that if they didn’t do the wraparound, it would start aging faster for the worse.
Click to expand...
They give it a cheesy fast food look, like the corner of a Denny’s restaurant, but if there was non window material in that corner it would make the whole building look a lot worse.
 
Hate the building. Fan of the wrap-around windows, all considered. It's all just a fairly irrelevant background building now. However, now that its said and done whether we like it or not, it really all comes down to this: can they activate the ground level asap with varied, colorful, welcoming, non-monolithic spaces within a year, or is this ground level going to stay boarded up for years like so many other ill-advised developments? If they pull off this latter consideration, then it's a night-and-day difference for me. I'll tolerate this block if it has a ground level. However, I'll despise it if it's covered in vinyl for years.
 
If they had literally just made the stone trff
bigpicture7 said:
Hate the building. Fan of the wrap-around windows, all considered. It's all just a fairly irrelevant background building now. However, now that its said and done whether we like it or not, it really all comes down to this: can they activate the ground level asap with varied, colorful, welcoming, non-monolithic spaces within a year, or is this ground level going to stay boarded up for years like so many other ill-advised developments? If they pull off this latter consideration, then it's a night-and-day difference for me. I'll tolerate this block if it has a ground level. However, I'll despise it if it's covered in vinyl for years.
Click to expand...
Yea if the ground level is good that could make it a lot better.
 
Streetscapes matter. Memories are conjured on streets we admire. The Shreve building, noteworthy or not, was admired and served its mission for many years. A silent icon to many. I miss it. My friends miss it. We readily admit we like tired old buildings.

No one I know speaks well of the new building.

How Druker and Stern pulled this off is not that puzzling - it's a real estate deal, after all. The City of Boston, however, has something to answer for.

Not everything has to be significant to be worthy of saving.
 
HenryAlan said:
I guarantee you that 60 years from now, people will argue that the building is historically significant. I won't argue that this is any kind of gem, but an honest discussion requires us to acknowledge that the predecessor wasn't so great, either. It was built cheaply, and with a tacky facade. It was old and people were accustomed to it. That doesn't mean it was noteworthy.
Click to expand...

i guess i like "tacky facade(s)" -- miss what was there. not b/c it had been there for a while, but b/c it was distinctive and detailed and made an effort.

the original iteration of hotel commonwealth was tacky -- looked like something out of disney california adventure or the cheesecake factory. the SC&L building *wasn't* that.
 
If "they" ever desire a satellite office outside of Langley, Shreve Crump, & Low could fit in nicely.


WXCD4LBJ7BN4FLLG3LU3RJBQEM.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's frustrating because it seems like the old building would have been a good candidate for a facedectomy. The exterior looked solid, plenty of windows and natural light, much better pedestrian interaction, opportunity for a cool rooftop garden/patio right off the Public Garden. What could have been...

Shreve%27s%20Arlington%20Street%20Facade.jpg
 
The idea of a facedectomy came up many times before they knocked the old SC&L down. Allegedly it wasn't structurally sound enough to be a candidate for that kind of thing (I don't buy that, but whatever).
 
Smuttynose said:
It's frustrating because it seems like the old building would have been a good candidate for a facedectomy. The exterior looked solid, plenty of windows and natural light, much better pedestrian interaction, opportunity for a cool rooftop garden/patio right off the Public Garden. What could have been...
Click to expand...
Shreve%27s%20Arlington%20Street%20Facade.jpg


The old building looked classic and detailed. Slap some healthy groundfloor retail on that, as part of the facedectomy, and it would have been absolutely awesome.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top