Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop
I was in attendence. I didn't takes notes but this is my best recollection (my rolling commentary will be in parenthesis):
Druker's team went through their presentation. They had a consultant on board who addressed historic preservation issues. The consultant basically stated that saving the facade would be too difficult due to nearby underground MBTA infastructure (I immediately thought of Exchange Place, and 101 arch Street as facades preserved near T lines). Someone did question why it was so difficult to save a facade when an underground parking facility was going to be consructed. I do not recall a response to that question. The historic consultant also said saving facades would result in an akward design.
A Druker parking consulant stated saving the Shreve building would impact the size of underground garage and cut down on parking as it would be impossible to construct garage under the existing building.
The session opened up for questions and comments. A person who I later identified as Itchy jumped out of the gate and was the first to comment. Jay Rourke of the BRA looked a bit irritated and made a half hearted attempt to keep Itchy from saying his piece, but to no avail. Itchy did an excellent job and came across as sincere, well prepared and thought provoking. He handed out an information packet to Druker, Marty Waltz's representative, and some other key players.
The majority of feedback was supportive of saving the Shreve building. Those who spoke in favor of the project seemed to have some kind of financial or business interest in supporting the project.
I spoke and stated we can have our cake and eat it too. Let Druker construct a 200,000 sq. ft. builidng but re-use the Shreve building and go higher mid-block. I was clear that I am not anti-development and favor all other back bay proposals, but I want to see a project that added to Boston's urban character, not detract. I discussed the fact that this project was consolidating 4 smaller buildings and constructing a lackluster landscraper in place. I stated Boston charm is from its street level scale and vitality and pointed to why Newbury Street is so well liked and successful. It was noted this is pretty much the last remaining block of small footprint buildings on the South side of Boylston, from Mass. Ave to Charles Street.
Beton Brut asked Meg Mainzer-Cohen, current head of Neighborhood Associaiton of Back Bay, point blank if neighorhood would support higher building mid block in order to save Shreve. She waffled and said something to the effect of "its complicated." Beton Brut commented on the project calling it more or less a loaf of bread. He had more useful comments but I don't recall the exact specifics.
The proponents stated the following:
Meg Mainzer-Cohen - stated she supports the project because the Shreve building just doesn't work. She indirectly responded to my comment about Newbury Street saying the street doesn't work that well either, signage, visibility and ADA accessibility are major problems. (I'm sure those are issues, particularly for chain stores which are chomping at the bit for big generic floorplates, but the free market does not lie, and the street is desirable enough with all its "problems" that retail rents on Newbury Street are amongst the highest in country. Clearly something is working there from a retail point of view. Also I think, but am not sure, that Meg was speaking on behalf of herself, not on behalf of the neighborhood association. It is my understanding that there are widely digressing opinions as to the appropriateness of this development in that association)
Four Seasons Representative (maybe general manager) - appeared looking very dapper in a $1,500 suit with a pocket square handkerchief neatly folded and slightly protruding from his jacket breast pocket. He stated from his standpoint of accomodating his guests, this block needs a upgrade. He said the actual sidewalk was in disarray. He sees a new building as a much needed improvement. (I'll admit the 4 seasons is an economic shot in the arm for Boston and maybe that neighborhood, but the building itself is a dog. My idea of improving the urban realm is not constructing a drive up lane next to the sidewalk and then jamming a bunch of high end european gas guzzlers all along the sidewalk. And don't get me started on the corner of the 4 Season's where it curves to meet the intersection of S. Charles and Boylston. Talk about a dead zone with no activation of the sidewalk - stark and cold. I can't give much credit to his opinions of what would work best for the Shreve parcel given the end result of the 4 seasons).
President of Greater Boston Real Estate Board - I think he said the public garden is the best asset in the neighborhood. The views from the offices surrounding the park are spectacular. This building will result in a larger office building and that many more office dwellers will be able to enjoy the the wonderful views. (I'm not so much concerned with the views the few hundred office drones will have from the the new building, as much as the many many more visitors, workers and citizens who will walk by or view the sterile and generic new building from the outside).
another guy who said he owns a business in town (this guy may (or may not be)) the only non connected person who spoke in favor - Can't save all the buildings, we need to change and grow. (His comments are not mutually exclusive with a proposal for adaptive reuse of the shreve builidng and adding the constructing the square footage elsewhere on the adjoining parcels midblock).
Shirley Kressel was there - she complemented Itchy. She is not a proponent of the project. I didn't know it was Shirley at the time she was speaking so I wasn't paying as much attention as I would have otherwise. She came across sincere and not in anyway irrational in my opinion. I think she commented on how it would be a tragedy to lose these buildings. She spoke against the amount of parking planned as excessive for such a location well served by transit.
I think Druker is probably hung up on the fact that the corner and its accompanying views from the new proposed building are key for prestige and marketing. Unfortunately the shreve building sits in the highest profile location of all 4 parcels. He probably doesn't want to construct the the same square footage mid block and spare the Shreve for this reason.
Lastly Jay Rourke, BRA representative - Jay made it clear that he has been reading the forum. He came across agitated and defensive at times especially when Itchy was speaking. I've had experience with dealing with City Hall and BRA moderated meetings, but I was taken aback at his unprofessionalism given he is a quasi public servant moderating the meeting. He tried to mock Itchy by broadcasting out loud to all in attendance something to the effect of - I read the forum, whats your name Itchy, right, did you bring your posse?, you stated you're gonna kick some ass tonight, right? After I spoke, he said okay I see you did bring your friends. Also, even though Drukers experts went over the alloted time, Jay tried to abruptly end the meeting although a few more people wanted to make comments. He went back and forth with Beton Brut - trying to gate keep the questions and comments by inquiring - is this a preservation comment or question? Beton stated in part yes and went ahead anyway and got his points across. Mr. Rourke's body language, rolling of the eyes and comments were surprising. Athough I had never met Itchy, Beton Brut or Briv before last night, in my opinion, in Mr. Rourke's mind we are some pain in the rear special interest group trying to derail the project, rather than independently thinking individuals with our own opinions.
I hope Mr. Rourke is reading this post and I hope he takes note and conducts himself with a more professionalism in the future when moderating these types of meetings. It sends a terrible message to politically active citizens, who care about development, about the BRA and also about the Mayor himself when the primary representive from a City agency conducts himself in this manner. In my occupation, reputation and integrity are everything, and I always conduct myself in an appropriate manner cognizant of this and also because its the right thing to do.
Mr. Rourke may have incorrectly sized up members of this forum and unconnected youngsters with opinions that don't count for very much. However, Mr. Rourke would be in error if he thought that no members of this Forum have connections with members of the city council or elsewhere in City Hall. If he cares about his reputation, he would be well advised to conduct himself in a more professional manner in the future.
Meeting adjourned - joined Beton Brut and Briv for a pint at the nearest watering hole to rehash the meeting and then went to bed.
Ps: Members of this forum had a good showing last night, If possible try to come to important meetings, I do think we can make a difference in the long run, and the more the merrier.
