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

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

Quote: Does anyone know the story behind this building? How does such a beautiful building in such a sought-after area fall into such disrepair?

When I was a tenant at the Park Square Building some of the offices had a view of the back of this wreck. About the only thing left is the facade, and maybe 30 feet in from Boylston on the lower two levels. You might get a view from the alley behind (a.k.a. Providence St.) or from the deck of the Rattlesnake. Alot of this end of Boylston looked that way 30 years ago!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

statler said:
2218458663_0c783970ca.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, nice.

Boston fixin' to lose a pantload of decent architecture:

2219255046_ef8b11d772.jpg


2219255048_c3ede43643.jpg


2219255052_5e8edd2d4c.jpg


2219255068_a190b2e06a.jpg
Click to expand...

The replacement better be good.

2218465207_eb703f1271.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure this is a good deal for the city. Those buildings boast a lot of detail for Boston; they make you take notice as you go by. I've always been entertained while walking by the architecture in this area.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

ablarc said:
Wow, nice.


Not sure this is a good deal for the city. Those buildings boast a lot of detail for Boston; they make you take notice as you go by. I've always been entertained while walking by the architecture in this area.
Click to expand...

Now these buidings will be replaced by 'son of Commonwealth Hotel'.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I'm not sure if I'm more shocked that neighborhood people support this or that some people here do.

Either way, this is fucking stupid. These buildings are charming and most deserve restoration - ignoring their details, even, this streetscape is far more vibrant than one dominated by a dull glassy landscraper.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

ablarc said:
Boston fixin' to lose a pantload of decent architecture
{...}
The replacement better be good.
{...}
Not sure this is a good deal for the city. Those buildings boast a lot of detail for Boston; they make you take notice as you go by. I've always been entertained while walking by the architecture in this area.
Click to expand...

No, no, it's ok. We have now have pictures we can look at, so it's no big loss.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I attended the BRA meeting last week. I went expecting to see some mass opposition to the demolition of the existing buildings. Not a single person spoke out against it. To my utter astonishment, even Marty Waltz spoke gushingly in favor of it.


Ive never been so disgusted about a Boston development in my entire life. Irreplaceable buildings like these are what give Boston its unique architectural character. If you can knock these down, then you can knock down 99% of the buildings in this city. Where the hell are all these supposed preservationists?


There's a real sense of inevitability concerning this project. Unless something drastic happens, the next step is obtaining demolition permits. The public comment period ends Feb. 4 I believe. I strongly encourage all those who would like to save these buildings to plead your case to Jay Rourke of the BRA at (617) 918-4317 or via email at jay.rourke.bra@cityofboston.gov . Try to spread the word to others who feel the same, as well.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I could agree more with you Briv on how there seams to be so little opposition to this project.

I went looking for a photo of the building that was demolished prior to the Apple Store construction. That building was utter crap and I still remember problems getting that building demolished. Now a proposal comes along that plans to level half of a city block of building with UNREPLACABLE architectural detail.

And where is the BBNA and Marty on this one? They are fighting further down Boylston on the Height of an Office Building (not tower); the height of a residential building on Exeter; and they are busy telling Berklee what they can't do.

Sometimes I think all these people can look at is the height of buildings. And because Drukers proposal isn't requiring a zoning variance for height it is going through without opposition. How incompetent is our city?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

TC said:
Sometimes I think all these people can look at is the height of buildings. And because Drukers proposal isn't requiring a zoning variance for height it is going through without opposition. How incompetent is our city?
Click to expand...

Druker's proposal doesnt require a variance, but it does require a "special exception". The current zoning for this area caps building heights at 80 feet. Druker's proposal is almost 130. There is a strange "special exception" written into the zoning that allows buildings a certain distance from the Arlington Street Church (I think 250 feet?) to reach a height of 130 feet. How does one qualify for such an exception? The way I understood it, the new building must simply be deemed "appropriate".

I found the explanation very vague, and the apparent oddness of this exception really intrigues me.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

If that Special Exemption is just for height it seems strange to me. Almost sounds like it should be required to combine several parcels into just one building.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

the Apple Store site was within the official Back Bay historic district and therefore required extensive review before demolition was approved. Unfortunately, the Arlington and WEIU buildings are outside that district.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Ron Newman said:
the Apple Store site was within the official Back Bay historic district and therefore required extensive review before demolition was approved. Unfortunately, the Arlington and WEIU buildings are outside that district.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Let's all send emails. What can it hurt?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

briv said:
Unless something drastic happens, the next step is obtaining demolition permits. The public comment period ends Feb. 4 I believe. I strongly encourage all those who would like to save these buildings to plead your case to Jay Rourke of the BRA at (617) 918-4317 or via email at jay.rourke.bra@cityofboston.gov . Try to spread the word to others who feel the same, as well.
Click to expand...

The public comment deadline is actually FEBRUARY 1. So write or call Rourke by then.

Other than Jay Rourke, anyone concerned about the loss of one of the remaining touches of class on the south side of the Public Garden, one of the city's most historical and serene places, can write the following as well:

The developer, who's actually on the board of cultural institutions like the Boston Museum and obviously cares about the city and its history:

Ronald M.Druker
50 Federal Street Fl 10
Boston, MA 02110

Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay:

NABB
337 Newbury St.
Boston, MA 02115
617-247-3961

Boston Globe:

Editorial Pages
(617) 929-3025

City Weekly
(617) 929-1540
ciweek@globe.com

Boston Globe
PO Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205

Does anyone have any other emergency numbers/e-mail addresses? Who is "Marty," who was mentioned earlier as someone who should be, but isn't, putting up a fight?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

for what it's worth, I emailed him. I don't know much about this particular project (except i would like to see the facades preserved at least), but what the hell. Strength in numbers right?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Another issue that could be problematic, and something worth mentioning to the BRA is the credit crunch.

Lots of projects in NYC are falling apart due to financing problems and increased construction costs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/nyregion/29fulton.html?ref=nyregion
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/sports/basketball/29sandomir.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

Given the slowing economy and a huge boom in Boston office construction, is this building really needed? There's no tenant lined up that I know of; it's all on spec.

Will Druker destroy Shreve, Crump and Lowe only to run out of money and have a hole in the ground for four years, a la the Gaiety Theater's site?

Worth mentioning to the BRA, at any rate...
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

My extremely detailed response from Jay Rourke regarding the S,C & L Building:

J. Rourke said:
Thank you for your comments.

Regards,

Jay

<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>
Jay Rourke
Senior Project Manager
Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Plaza
Boston Massachusetts 02201
617.918.4317 - w
617.742.7783 - f
jay.rourke.bra@cityofboston.gov
Click to expand...
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I would say that's appropriate considering you don't even live in Boston.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I thought NIMBY's or NIMBY minded people couldn't use this site.

Let hear it for the NIMHD's!!! (Not In My Histrical District)
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

NIMBY? The acronym stands for "not in my backyard," lest we forget. It's a term well applied to Chinatown residents who don't want empty parcels developed, Back Bay neighbors with vague "traffic and shadow" complaints about the Columbus Center over the Pike, or Allstoners who don't want Harvard to block their views by building on empty lots. Ditto for the neighborhoods that opposed development of the Greenway because those buildings wouldn't do anything for them.

I for one live in New York. Back Bay is nowhere near anything I've ever called a backyard. I have no personal gain or loss from anything built there.

But I do value Boston as an important center of our entire country's history, and as a beautiful, unique city. Building the South Station Tower does not threaten the city's beauty. But tearing down century-old buildings that work well in the city's grid, provide an eclectic and personal look made special by time, and have interesting stories as, for instance, the location of the continent's oldest jeweler or the home of one of the first women's unions -- that does threaten everything that makes Boston special, and everything that makes the city and region (which is a cold, nasty, mostly ugly place, let's not forget) attractive to workers and employers.

If there were a building that does something innovative, that creates value for Boston, proposed for Shreve Crump & Low's site, I'd be for it, just as I'm rabidly for Atlantic Yards (which IS in my backyard) and other projects in New York.

But let's not kid ourselves: for all its luxury, this Pelli design is a turd pooped out by a Rt. 128 office park. And it probably won't even have any tenants or be profitable, given the millions of sq. feet of office space coming online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top