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

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

^^ I admit I've only found this board recently, but dood - do you actually read it?

EDIT: Knowing how these things typically go I should probably have just written "troll alert" and left it there...
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Ruling allows Back Bay demolition
Art Deco landmark appeal fails
By Greg Turner, The Boston Herald

Hub developer Ronald Druker is free to demolish the former Shreve, Crump & Low property, after a judge rejected an appeal by residents who have tried for years to keep the wrecking ball away from the Back Bay building.

Massachusetts Land Court Judge Karyn Scheier dismissed the residents? challenge of the Boston Landmarks Commission?s vote in November to not accept a petition seeking special protection for the building.

The judge ruled the residents had ?no right of appeal? under state law because the commission had never made a ?designation? or ?determination? for the 330 Boylston St. building overlooking the Public Garden.

?The court was very clear that the Landmarks Commission acts to protect things, and if we don?t, there?s nothing really to appeal,? said Bryan Glascock, director of the city?s Environment Department, who was speaking for the commission.

The case pitted a lone lawyer, who lives near the building and took up the cause pro bono, against the city?s legal team and the Druker Co.?s hired guns at Goulston & Storrs.

?It?s a landmark and it?s going to be torn down,? lamented Diana (Eckstein) Viens, who filed the appeal. ?No matter what was said in the courtroom, it?s a landmark.?

The commission rejected a similar petition for landmark status in 2006. Fans of the 105-year-old building tout its original Beaux Arts architecture and the Art Deco facade added when the jewelry store set up shop in the 1930s.

?It?s a shame that (Druker) doesn?t recognize the value of that building,? said Tony Fusco, president of the Art Deco Society of Boston.

The appeal hasn?t really slowed Druker?s $120 million plan for a new nine-story building. Because of the deep recession, the third-generation Boston builder has been unable to line up financing or tenants for his proposed 230,000 square feet of luxury offices and street-level retail spaces.

?When the economic climate is such that this building can be developed, then we will move forward,? Druker said. ?Our intention is to build a building that will be a landmark for the next century.?
Click to expand...

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1182782
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I imagine you're a little fed up with politics right now, John, but I wish someone will some political skills would mount a serious campaign to save this building.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

?Our intention is to build a building that will be a landmark for the next century.?

No you're not because obviously, the proposed design is not landmark worthy.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

KentXie said:
?Our intention is to build a building that will be a landmark for the next century.?

No you're not because obviously, the proposed design is not landmark worthy.
Click to expand...

Come, come. Just as Tremont on the Common was a landmark of the last century, this building will be a landmark for this one.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

The more pressing question, and the one that should be the focus of any political action on this matter is: Will this demolition be allowed to proceed without the money to complete the project in place?
That is, will we have yet another gravel parking lot for an indefinite period of years, and this one located on the corner of the Public Garden? That's the seemingly likeliest outcome, and to me even worse than the grim and unimaginative POS planned for the site.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^^ I doubt that it will be demolished until financing is in place. There are still advertisements for retail space in the windows, which I assume is targeted at temporary tenants.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

It's just as well, Justin7, I was for demolition!
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

My assumption was the "For Lease" signs were and are pure kabuki to back up the assertion that "we just can't lease the building as-is." Perhaps I should try to sign a lease at whatever it is they're asking?

And I'm not quite sure where the optimism comes from? As far as I can tell, you can demolish buildings and dig prominent holes anywhere you want to in this town with not one dime in actual completion guarantees or in-place funding. Some half-baked reasoning for immediate demolition will be posited (why, we must tear it down to get the money), the building will be demolished, and then nothing will happen. Desperation to fill the gap will lead to an even worse outcome than what is already promised for that corner.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

^^Give it a try and let me know how that works out for you. I know we have a couple scars on the city from failed development, and it does give us ammo to question all future development, but c'mon. Do we really NOT want to see the city continue a progressive movement.

Though it is a good one, I'm starting to get sick of the hole in the ground argument.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

the 'hole in the ground' argument would be irrelevant if it wasn't so true.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Indeed, and we can be "progressive" for YEARS building only on existing holes in the ground and parking lots. I see no reason to tear down perfectly serviceable buildings on the vague promise that one day, maybe, the money will show up to perhaps build a dull and generic McBuilding on a prime corner.

This lot is Broadway and/or Park Place. The city should treat it accordingly and develop it carefully.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

"Our intention is to build a building that will be a landmark for the next century.?

Or

"Our intention is to build a building that will make us the most amount of money possible."


....are these statements mutually exclusive? I think not. [Although I believe adaptive re-use with a huge addition is the best solution in this case]
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

scootie said:
"Our intention is to build a building that will be a landmark for the next century.?

Or

"Our intention is to build a building that will make us the most amount of money possible."

....are these statements mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

Where Ronald Druker is concerned, they most assuredly are.

scootie said:
I think not. [Although I believe adaptive re-use with a huge addition is the best solution in this case]
Click to expand...

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

Indeed.[/QUOTE]

Totally agree with your idea
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

IIRC, Druker, at the time he first proposed his new building, said he would be looking for the highest rent in Boston, and that the interior fit-out would be so luxurious that the highest rent was merited. He made no similar claim as to the quality of the building exterior.

Without a tenant willing to pay the highest rents in Boston, the building as proposed by Druker will never be built, and the mediocrity of the facade will be matched by the banality of the interior.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

I like Beton's idea. It just sounds like it would make more money than some luxury offices that there's no real market for, regardless of the design aspect.
 
Re: Shreve, Crump & Low bldng may be replaced w/ new develop

Problem is, the concept I suggested is "illegal" based on the lunatic shadow statutes that constrain dense development where it could provide the greatest benefit, both to preservationists and developers.

Ignorance is strength.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top