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

[skintreesnail]

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

Hi, I'm from Philly. I've been checking out this forum because I'm considering moving to Boston. We had a similar situation here on the corner of Rittenhouse Park in Philadelphia (in case any of you have been here or have heard of it). A couple of years ago they wanted to tear down this old mansion:

To build this new condo:

However, the neighborhood complained because it would have been a shame to loose such a classy building to something that would have most likely been a brick wall with a door and some windows in it. So the developer compromised and did this to sustain the facade while moving ahead with the condo:

I'm guessing something similar could be done for this building in Boston. It would be a shame to loose such an ornate piece of history to a drab and unremarkable building that looks like it's plopped in the midst of a historic neighborhood. Keeping the facade would only help the design. Philly has lost a huge number of historic buildings through its shady past, something that the city is just beginning to correct now. Boston is pretty unique in that it has managed to maintain a good bit of its past.

 

[Ron Newman]

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

Regarding NABB, I think the problem is that this building is just outside the official historic preservation zone, being on the south side of Boylston.

 

[JimboJones]

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

Won't anyone support me in voting for a complete demolition?

 

[statler]

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

Not I.

 

[Ron Newman]

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

You're quite outnumbered on this one. I'm not against development by any means, but there is no good reason to tear down this building instead of refitting it. It is not blighted, except by the owner's (in)actions of emptying out old tenants and failing to find new ones.

 

[kmp1284]

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

Won't anyone support me in voting for a complete demolition?

I wouldn't miss it, there is absolutely nothing overly remarkable about it. Besides, what purpose other than providing a sense of nostalgia does keeping it around serve?

 

[Ron Newman]

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

The same purpose it has served for the past century -- to house retail stores and offices?

 

[statler]

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

I wouldn't miss it, there is absolutely nothing overly remarkable about it. Besides, what purpose other than providing a sense of nostalgia does keeping it around serve?

I think Padre Mike said it best above:

(...) 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.

What higher purpose do you need?

 

[whighlander]

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

Shame Shame to a senior Member of the Forum this kind of statement is what one expects from a newby --- "I wouldn't miss it, there is absolutely nothing overly remarkable about it. Besides, what purpose other than providing a sense of nostalgia does keeping it around serve?"

There is nothing overly remarkable about many of the 19th Century or even 18th Century buildings except that without them -- Boston would just be Houston without the Astrodome {oops they leveled that didn't they} or Las Vegas without the Sands {oops another one gone}

Well you get the point -- you need to maintain a certain critical mass of period structures to have a certain ethos ? in particular the human-scale ethos -- that predates the automobilization of cities

Boston has that certain ethos ? in particular on Beacon Hill, the North End, South End and most of the Back Bay ? Boylston is on the bubble.

Tear down the other buildings in the block including the facades if you must -- but leave the Shreve's so that a bit of the pre-21st Century will still exist on that side of Boylston to complement the street wall of buildings on the Newbury Street side.

My humble suggestion is that like the Russia Wharf -- the interior of the block be removed as needed for new construction and as much of the facades be kept for human scale pedestrian interest.

In London ? near to Victoria Station ? in the summer of 2006 -- there was a near 10 story fa?ade being supported by steel while a new building was being constructed behind it.

In Gdańsk, Poland the Długi Targ -- is a fabulous Hanseatic League-era pedestrian street ? www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=125318 -- except that with a couple of exceptions -- the facades are reconstructions of the pre WWII street wall {destroyed in detail at the very end of the WWII by a combination of retreating Germans and Advancing Russians}. A handful of museums and other very famous structures {e.g. Artur?s Court, Old City Hall} were meticulously restored ? the rest of the street is just a 2D+ veneer of 15th, 16th, early 17th Century facades with standard concrete communist-era blocks just beyond the veneer. However, Długi Targ and Mariacka Street {best place to buy amber jewelry} another similarly restored street ? work extremely well at the pedestrian level and even from the skyline view.

Besides the advantage of keeping a functional and pleasant pedestrian-level view ? preserving the facades of multiple old structures {including the non-distinguished} with new innards and even glass towers, etc. -- can enable the latest in green-tech HVAC, as well as state-of-the-art telecom to be integrated into the fabric of the district ? thereby enhancing its overall economic value to all but the homeless squatters.

Keep the Shreve?s facades!

Westy

 

[statler]

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

I don't know if I go so far to compare kmp to a newby.
There has always been a strong neophile element on this board and hopefully there always will be.
Boston often leans too far in the other direction - a balance in the force can be a good thing.
That said, he is still dead wrong about the SC&L building.

 

[nm88]

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

Re: KMP's statement. He's joking.

 

[briv]

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

There will be a BRA public meeting held regarding this project on Thursday, Jan. 17 at 6pm. It will be held in the Mezzanine Conference Room of the Copley BPL.

I just added this event to the calendar here as well.

 

[tobyjug]

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

I've spent a fair amount of time inside of Shreve's shopping for various girlfriends and wives. It isn't a functional space, and the highest and best use of the property is not "retenanting". That being said, Drucker's proposal is a bust. It is one thing to put up something like Atelier in a reemerging area, but quite another to inflict the proposed banality on one of the most prominent locations in the city. I thought that one of the other members was on to something when discussing Manhattan sliver high rises. I'd rather see 250 to 300 feet of something like that set as far back on the site as possible, with the Shreve and Women's Union facades preserved.

 

[JimboJones]

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

"It is a perfect example of 19th-century architecture ..."

Great, grab a camera, take some photos, maybe a video.

Then we can tear it down, right?

 

[statler]

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

^^I don't know. Walking by a photo just don't seem the same, ya know?

 

[briv]

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

As a reminder to those interested, the public meeting concerning this project will take place tonight at 6pm. It will be held in the Mezzanine Conference Room of the Copley BPL.

 

[JimboJones]

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

The Druker Co. has proposed this mixed-use building for lower Boylston Street overlooking the Boston Public Garden.

Residents of Boston?s Back Bay got their first glimpse of the proposed redevelopment of 330 Boylston St. and they liked it.

?It?s an impressive start,? said Myron Miller, a member of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay.

More than four dozen people gathered at the Boston Public Library on Thursday night to hear details of the 221,230-square-foot building planned for the corner of Boylston and Arlington streets.

If approved, owner Ronald Druker, president of The Druker Co., will raze the former the former Shreve Crump & Low location and build eight floors of Class A office space with ground-floor retail and 150 below-grade parking spaces.

The ground level will feature a granite fa?ade while the rest of the building will be comprised of cast stone, a product that is used to replicate the look of limestone. The contemporary-style building also will feature bay windows trimmed with wood and bronze.

While NABB?s Miller was supportive, he noted that the concept could be ?even better for the city of Boston.? However, he asked whether there was a need for 150 parking spaces given that the spots are reserved for tenants only.

?The building is being expanded and it will add more vehicles and traffic to a severely congested section of the city,? he said.

In response, David Black, the team?s traffic consultant from Watertown-based Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., said they erred on the low side in terms of parking supply.

?If you compare this building with another Back Bay building that is in line with these existing travel patterns, we are not providing as aggressive parking,? Black said.

Elliott Laffer, another NABB member, asked whether there would be enough sidewalk space to accommodate the added retail and office use at the site.

?We are not talking about the John Hancock building,? said Druker. ?The reality is that crowded sidewalks are good sidewalks; they enhance public realm. Go walk on Newbury Street the first day the temperate reaches 60 degrees and you can barely walk without hitting someone.?

Daniel Donahue, representing the nearby Lenox Hotel, applauded the project. ?We are excited. We fully support it,? he said.

Source: Back Bay Residents Impressed by Druker Plan - By Thomas Grillo, Banker & Tradesman

 

[itchy]

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

Oh, hell.

What a ship of fools. Next stop, Burlington, MA.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

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

I have to think that if they aren't throwing a shit fit that it might be nice. The rendering used in that article is an older one than was probably shown at this meeting. I'm not 100% thought but I would think that the newer one would have more detail and probably be shinier.

 

[statler]

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

Took some photos of the old building yesterday.

I'll admit I wasn't quite as impressed by the building as I thought I would be.
That said, it's still a very pretty building and I still think this will be a net loss for the city.

This is the building next door which I think we will also be losing:

Hopefully they will be able to dismantle this facade and reuse it on another building elsewhere:

Upper floors:

Off topic (but just up the block):
Does anyone know the story behind this building? How does such a beautiful building in such a sought-after area fall into such disrepair?

Its better looking sibling: