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

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

preserve the historic facade; do any structural improvements needed prior, and build up with glass. How hard is it to stabilize more density in this city? Why settle for a glorified faux venitian piece of crap when we can have a modern idealism that can create an everlasting image and parent of things to come!? This city is ridiculous. I must be a communist. Screw the 'democratic' process. Build with community opposition. They will get used to it. It's a point of making things better, not making this place a museum with no funding or vision. Where can I get Warren Buffets' revised will with my name in it?
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The problem is Druker WON'T preserve the historic exterior. If he would simply do that, a great deal of his problems would disappear. Of course he would still need to put effort into the above structure, but maintaining the current structure would solve several of his problems.

I agree that you can't let a city turn into a museum, but when you have something special, such as the SC&L building, it is important to preserve it for future generations enjoy. If we tear down too many buildings like this one, Boston will no longer be Boston - it'll be a relocated Houston, Atlanta, etc., etc. Be careful what you ask for.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

That is a broad assumption. The city of Boston has an opportunity to set an architectural and planning statement for the future. The poor policy and planning decisions of Atlanta and Houston are their own problems. Just because the scenario has been replicated in cities with poor oversight, doesn't mean it's a perpetual motion for cities alike. This whole idea is like beating a dead horse because it is such an obvious solution but will never come to fruition for obvious reasons. I'm all for preservation of these historic facades and structures. I'm also for innovative design that would better capture Boston as a 21st century city while still having an impact as a historical icon. There are very careful ways to do this and one of them is to prevent Druker from building on this site. Can't the city just turn him away? We need to move away from these big business developers and move in closer to architects and designers who care about social environment and the psychological impact of such gluttonous buildings. Especially in such a socially conscious city like Boston. With such a density and a very clear architectural record, we need initiatives that promote this kind of design and we need to educate through bra intervention and media coverage. We also need to open our arms to architects and developers outside of the U.S. If he wants to build this, he should go talk to Natick officials. I'm sure they'd be more than willing.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

8c0651c1d7_350boylston_092608.jpg
not much better!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

That's still boring, static, and monolithic. Other than the breaks in the facade, I would actually argue that this is worse - without a curved corners, we can now quite literally call this a box. Far worse than what it would be replacing.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

100% agree! Build something taller to the right of the Shreve building! leave this corner alone!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Well haven't I seen this building on Boylston Street before...oh wait we did 20 years ago. B-b-b-but that one was just so terrible it JUST HAD to be torn down for a WORLD CLASS? development by a FAMOUS RENOWN ARCHITECT?.
2347.jpg


It's been done better before and the SCL building has already beautifully graced the existing corner.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I'm not annoyed with the boxy-ness of the building as that's pretty much de rigueur for that block.

I am annoyed with the fact the exterior looks as though it might be assembled out of even cheaper and nastier looking precast junk than the earlier proposal. Of course it's difficult to tell for sure without a high-quality, or even large rendering to examine. Not that it would be hard to make one publicly available...
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Jeeze, that first design was more interesting than that!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I guess Druker paid for something out Pelli and Co's Book of Mediocre Stock Designs

that's what I hate about 'celeb architects' selling their name for what it obviously developer influenced and probably designed by the underlings of his firm

for that location, any new development, even if it maintains the SC&L facade, needs some sort of gimmicky flourish in the design to make it worthy of it's spot

anything else will just be boring and a perfect waste imo like what we see above
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I knew the "redesign" would just be a superficial alteration of the original design. He simply made it boxier and lightened the dark, glass bays. This is no real improvement; I think it's, for the most part, actually a downgrade.

If Druker gets his way, he gets 210,000 sf of high-rent, Class A office space with rare, covetous views of the Public Garden. In return, the people of Boston see half a block of historic urban fabric obliterated; new shadows darkening the south-facing Tiffany windows of the Arlington Street Church; a tacky caricature of Back Bay architecture looming over the prominent southwest corner of the Public Garden; and the further blandifacation of our city. What a deal!

There is still an active, ongoing effort to stop this project. Information is currently being collected to submit as part of an application to protect at least the Arlington Building with landmark status. If anyone has any information that they believe may help, they can pm or email me and I can try put you in contact with the appropriate person. I also still strongly encourage all others who want to see this building saved to continue to write the BRA, and the mayor's office voicing your opposition to Druker's proposal.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

This is a general observation, and I'm in no way supporting Drucker's plan.

__________________________________________________________________

Most of this board would consider them selves proponents of good development, and it some cases critics of bad development (see this thread). However, the most engaged any group of members has gotten has been over this project, and that was to take to the street and BRA meetings to protest.

This is the same behavior that many on here blast "NIMBY's" over and over again. If I didn't agree in principal for what most are protesting with this project, I would assume that you guys are the typical background noise that likes to protest.

My point being, people really only get fired up when they feel thier principals are being violated. It's odd that so many criticize NIMBY's when they don't share the same view, but are more than happy to protest alongside Shirley Kressel when its something important to them. In that respect, I see no sense at the broad-brush attacks against NABB and similars, they are just standing up for what they believe.

I don't even have a problem with Ned opposing Columbus Center, I just wish that he was honest with his reasoning.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

He did such a nice job with Heritage on the Garden, next door. That's what makes this latest iteration all the more insulting. I'd prefer a modified repeat of Heritage on this block, and yes, with even taller sections, if Drucker could at least bring up the quality of design here, rather than dragging it down.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

You can count me in on the opposition to this as well now. I liked the original proposal provided it was built with good materials and had better street level interaction than Shreves but this new design is just a middle finger to the NABB(albeit deserved at times) and anyone else critical of his plans. I'll try to make the next meeting on this now that the summer is over and we have something to really rail against.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

It's definitely inferior to the first proposal. Somehow the newer on e seems to huddle and loom at the same time. I say restore Shreves and let Druker build taller on the remainder of the site.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Ya can't blast the shadows argument all the time and then use it yourself!!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

From the Herald. Tower? more low-rise! my paper got wet!
xxxxxhullseagull20086320400.jpg
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Wow that is definitely a downgrade in design. The first one, even though it will destroy the original facade, at least have a rounder shape, better set backs, and parts that abut the building. The new one is a box with sharp corner and generic. It's awful. I too fully oppose this project.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Suffolk 83 said:
Ya can't blast the shadows argument all the time and then use it yourself!!
Click to expand...

The argument against new shadows here is unique and specific to this proposal; not simply the application of some monolithic "shadow argument". The window collection is culturally significant and stained glass, you know, sorta depends on sunlight in order to achieve its full intended effect.

I bring it up because in all the shadow impact studies submitted by the development team, any mention of these windows is conveniently avoided even though, due to its close proximity directly north, the church would likely receive the heaviest impact.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Quoted for truth:

briv said:
This is no real improvement; I think it's, for the most part, actually a downgrade.
Click to expand...

Callous, crass, cynical, insulting...and worthless.

briv said:
...the people of Boston see:
  • half a block of historic urban fabric obliterated;
  • new shadows darkening the south-facing Tiffany windows of the Arlington Street Church;
  • a tacky caricature of Back Bay architecture looming over the prominent southwest corner of the Public Garden;
  • and the further blandifacation of our city.

There is still an active, ongoing effort to stop this project.
Click to expand...

I'm still in California, but I'm sharpening my spear for battle. I sure hope they let me take it on the plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top