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

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)

Ummm...that's why we have historical districts.

Most urbanists would agree they are a good thing.

Edit: Well said Itchy! (Now I feel bad I bottom-page'd you. Everyone go back and read Itchy's post.)
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I wrote to jay at the BRA...is it ok to write to the BRA if you live in Chelsea?
Exactly as itchy said; my concern isn't my backyard; it is for Boston, a city I have great pride in.
I feel that if you're familiar w/the city and have a fondness for it, these buildings are a reason why. W/out the things that make Boston unique; and these buildings certainly help to do that, why brave our winters? When you hear people say "Oh I love Boston" what about it do you think they love?
A few years back I had friends visiting from Michigan and they were disappointed not to see more North End. In their mind they were coming to see a much larger version of what little remains between Blackstone St. and City Hall.
I don't understand fighting to preserve the Dainty Dot in a dead neighborhood right on the fringe of downtown, but not fighting for these buildings which complement their surroundings (as a matter of fact I can't imagine looking out at this proposed piece of shit from the public garden) and are part of the fabric that people come to and stay in Boston for. These buildings are rich and romantic, and what is going in has no soul.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I'll go retract my statements right away considering that i don't live in Boston and won't for at least another 6 months. Heaven forbid anyone take an interest in the city if they live outside it (at the moment).

Rourke doesn't know I live outside the city nor does he know how old I am, my education level, my financial standing, social status, race, gender, or anything else about me. For all he knows, I could live in Barrow, Alaska. On the other hand, I could live one block away from that site. Honestly, I didn't expect any response and I appreciate that the email was even opened. I was simply posting my reply. Thank you, Itchy, for verbalizing that sentiment better than I am capable.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Hey all,

I've sent letters to the Globe, Herald, BostonNOW and Metro today, as well as the NABB, BRA and State House, to alert them of the destruction of a little corner of grace and history on the Public Garden.

I don't know if it'll lead to any results, but I encourage anyone to do the same, or to reach out to TV/radio or the Governor's office; we might as well do all we can to save this building -- for the myriad reasons we've articulated over and over again.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

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?

FYI - As per Boston Preservation Alliance's web site, look who is on the "Board of Directors":

Kim Druker Stockwell,
The Druker Company, Ltd.
 
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...

Itchy, the Filene's thread has a comment today from the developers that they are still putting their financing together. Frankly, I would be surprised if Druker gets financing for this unless he signs up a tenant. See this article from Bloomberg today (tangential I know) which suggests the credit markets are going to get a lot tighter. It would be a shame to have these buildings demolished to be replaced by a parking lot.
Subprime, CDO Bank Losses May Exceed $265 Billion, S&P Says
By Jody Shenn and David Mildenberg

Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Losses from securities linked to subprime mortgages may exceed $265 billion as regional U.S. banks, credit unions and overseas financial institutions write down the value of their holdings, according to Standard & Poor's.

S&P cut or put on review yesterday the ratings on $534 billion of bonds and collateralized debt obligations tied to home loans made to people with poor credit, the most by the New York-based firm in response to rising mortgage delinquencies.

While banks and securities firms such as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. accounted for most of the $90 billion in writedowns to date, S&P said the next round will be borne mainly by smaller financial institutions in Europe, Asia, and the U.S. The ratings actions yesterday may create a ``ripple impact'' that further reduces prices of the securities, S&P said.

``There's a lack of confidence in the markets and this exacerbates that,'' said Anthony Davis, a banking analyst at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Florham Park, New Jersey. ``This will have a chilling effect on the markets.''

Almost half the subprime bonds rated by S&P in 2006 and early 2007 were cut or placed on review, potentially forcing credit unions and government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks to write down their holdings, the firm said.

The securities represent $270.1 billion of subprime mortgage bonds and $263.9 billion of CDOs. About 35 percent of all CDOs comprised of asset-backed securities were put under review, S&P said.

``It is difficult to predict the magnitude of any such effect, but we believe it will have implications for trading revenues, general business activity, and liquidity for the banks,'' S&P said in a statement yesterday.

Some of the largest banks have already taken ``significant'' losses related to subprime mortgages and CDOs, and aren't likely to report more writedowns, S&P said. CDOs package assets into new securities with varying degrees of risk, from AAA to unrated classes.

Accounting rules have allowed smaller banks to avoid writing down their holdings until the credit ratings fell if they intended to keep them until maturity. S&P said it will review the ratings of smaller banks that are ``thinly capitalized.'' It didn't name any of the institutions.

The largest U.S. regional banks with the lowest Tier 1 capital ratios as of June 30 were Seattle-based Washington Mutual Inc.; Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina; National City Corp. of Cleveland; Atlanta-based SunTrust Banks Inc.; and Regions Financial Corp. in Birmingham, Alabama. Tier 1 capital measures a company's ability to cover losses.

Spokespeople for the banks either declined to comment or couldn't be reached for comment.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

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.


I don't agree with your last comment in this paragraph. If you travel the country much you'll see that New Englands NATURAL beauty is hard to beat. It's cold in winter there's no doubt about that, but a southern summer is equally unbearable. The uglyness you refer to must be the remnants of the industrial revolution, which got it's American start in New England. We should consider these "ruins". As far as "nasty" goes are you talking about the people?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Nasty referred primarily to the weather, not so much to the people :)

The VT landscape is definitely beautiful, but that's not going to lure as much business and tourists into Boston as a spiffy-looking Boston will.

Regarding the Industrial Rev buildings -- the old brick and stone mills and warehouses (e.g., Fort Point Channel) are lovely.

It's the city's more recent forays -- since the 1950s -- into construction have been pretty unfortunate, in my opinion. Swaths of Southie/the Waterfront, the "West End," the area around South and North Stations, City Hall Plaza, most of the Fenway and BU area, as well as the majority of skyscrapers in the financial district -- disastrous. The Greenway, as it is today, is hideous. Try walking the length of it (which is actually impossible, since it's gnarled with heavily trafficked intersections); it ain't a looker.

Compare that with Beacon Hill, Back Bay, North End, South End, or parts of the Fens. Barring economic or population necessity, why would you destroy that stuff to dabble in the old urban renewal formulas that have wreaked havoc on Boston?

The city's winning formula, sadly, is the old stuff. Until developers and architects learn how to build (the ICA is great, Trans National looks cool and so on -- but Pelli's design looks like an upscale mall; it's the sort of contemporary-trendy stuff that Boston has experimented with, and looked outdated as a result of, for 50 years), we shouldn't screw with Back Bay classics to build landscrapers. Sure, build them on empty lots or in lieu of the mistakes of the last 50 years. But leave the nice stuff alone, for the sake of having a livable city. It's a recipe for disaster and regret.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The funny thing is that the city looks so much better than it did, say, 35 years ago. There is still the same solid core of good older stuff, although much of the newer is kind of building fungible filler. It is that fungibility that makes me not regret the loss of Rudolph's little building for a Transnational. In contrast, the loss of those Kenmore Square buildings for the Commonwealth Hotel is a rat of a different color. I wouldn't mind Shreves and the Union going if what was replacing them was decent. It is big, blah, broadbrush. I guess I'm with you brother, at least till Mr. Drucker makes a better offering.
 
A warning for Boston?

Back in July, Harry Macklowe, a New York developer, razed the Beaux-Arts Drake Hotel in Midtown to make room for the typical NY 40-story, boxy, glass office tower. He had plans to level a row of beautiful townhouses with small, upscale shops to make room for the office building and the massive Nordstrom it was to house.

The townhouses, for now, are still standing. But the Drake's site has been a big sinkhole for over 6 months, with uncertainty about its fate. Now Macklowe is handing control of his properties over to his primary lender, Deutsche Bank, a result of the subprime fallout.

I hate a landscraper, but if Druker destroys a cool Art Deco building and the Public Garden winds up with a pile of dirt, I suggest a Frankenstein-style raid on the Boston Preservation Committee, the body that denied Shreve's landmark status -- and where Druker's daughter **happens** to be a member of the Board of Directors. Smells hella fishy.

Macklowe in Deal to Cede Control
Of Seven Manhattan Properties
By JENNIFER S. FORSYTH
January 31, 2008 4:38 p.m.

Troubled New York real estate titan Harry Macklowe has reached a tentative agreement with his lender to turn over effective control of seven Manhattan office buildings he triumphantly acquired less than a year ago for $7.2 billion, according to a people familiar with the matter.
[Harry Macklowe]

Mr. Macklowe borrowed $5.8 billion from Deutsche Bank to acquire the buildings in a highly leveraged transaction during the height of the real estate frenzy early last year. The debt is scheduled to come due on Feb. 9. But with the real estate debt market greatly constrained by the credit crunch, Mr. Macklowe has found no way to refinance that debt.

This week, he reached a tentative agreement with Deutsche Bank that would give him an extension of the loan but Deutsche Bank would in essence control the properties so they could be marketed and sold. Mr. Macklowe would still retain title, to avoid triggering costly New York City transfer taxes, and Macklowe Properties would still manage the buildings.

Mr. Macklowe's capitulation is one of the most dramatic signs so far of how the credit problems caused by the subprime crisis in residential real estate has spilled over into the world of office buildings, stores, apartment buildings and other commercial property. Numerous other investors who acquired real estate at the top of the market are facing similar problems because values have fallen and they can't refinance debt that they placed on buildings in rosier times.

Mr. Macklowe's situation is still very fluid and the deal could still collapse, people involved said. Even after final details with Deutsche Bank are hammered out, holders of junior debt on four of the seven buildings must also agree, according to two people involved. Deutsche Bank and William Macklowe, Mr. Macklowe's son and president of Macklowe Properties, declined to comment.

Mr. Macklowe, who also lost several major properties during the real estate collapse of the early 1990s, typically doesn't give up without a fight. His concession to Deutsch Bank appears to be an effort to preserve his resources for an even bigger battle with the hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group.

When Mr. Macklowe bought the Equity Office portfolio he put in only $50 million of his own equity and borrowed the rest, some $1.2 billion, from Fortress. That loan also is due Feb. 9 and Mr. Macklowe has virtually no chance of refinancing it without a major equity infusion. Even worse, Mr. Macklowe pledged a personal guaranty of $1billion for that loan as well of his interests in 12 other properties, including the prized General Motors Building, overlooking the Plaza Hotel and Central Park.

Write to Jennifer S. Forsyth at jennifer.forsyth@wsj.com
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

If the committee is: 1) a public entity 2) of which she is an officer, there is the spectre of conflict of interest issues under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 268A, sections 19 and 23 (a.k.a. "the Conflict of Interest Law"). No doubt the State Ethics Commission would take an interest if it became aware of the facts.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The Fed reported last week that as of mid-January, depository banks in the United States had no reserves of their own; their reserves consisted entirely of borrowed capital. The Fed publishes monthly data on how much the depository institutions keep in their vaults, going back to 1959, and this is the first time theses banks have reported they have none of their own capital on hand. This is unprecedented; the banks have never before even come remotely close to this situation. It looks like the banks lost about 35 percent of their reserves between Nov and Dec, and the rest since then.

As I said, unless Druker has a tenant signed up, I doubt he'll get the financing in this credit crunch.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

There's no tenant that I know of.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

BostonPreservationAlliance email address?
 
Re: A warning for Boston?

I hate a landscraper, but if Druker destroys a cool Art Deco building and the Public Garden winds up with a pile of dirt, I suggest a Frankenstein-style raid on the Boston Preservation Committee, the body that denied Shreve's landmark status -- and where Druker's daughter **happens** to be a member of the Board of Directors. Smells hella fishy.

Just to clarify - I think the Boston Landmarks Commission denied Shreve's landmark status and Druker's daughter is on the board of directors of the Boston Preservation Alliance (separate entities). However, at a bare minimum, it's clear the Druker family is not only with the connected with the City Hall but also the preservation community.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Yeah, the Boston Preservation Alliance is a private non-profit with no official power whatsoever.
 
Re: A warning for Boston?

Just to clarify - I think the Boston Landmarks Commission denied Shreve's landmark status and Druker's daughter is on the board of directors of the Boston Preservation Alliance (separate entities). However, at a bare minimum, it's clear the Druker family is not only with the connected with the City Hall but also the preservation community.

Then no conflict under M.G.L. c.268A.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I wrote a letter to Marty Walz (the state rep for Back Bay) about saving the Arlington Building and I'll attach her reply here. Apparently it's Mayor Menino we should have been writing to.

Mike: Thanks for your message. In fact, both the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and I oppose the destruction of the Arlington Building. NABB led an effort to protect the building by seeking landmark status for it. Unfortunately, the Boston Landmarks Commission denied NABB's petition, giving the developer authority to tear the building down. We have used every means available to protect the building, but the City of Boston, which has legal authority here, is willing to support the demolition. I agree with your opinion of the building but we have lost the argument. Marty Walz
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

If this is true, why does the press only represent the locals as laudatory toward this malfeasance?
 

Back
Top