Bostonist is introducing a new feature, MassDebate (yes, it's as massdebatory as it sounds!), in which we present the opposing sides of a controversial local issue. If you have a hot-button topic you'd like to see us cover, or if you want to represent your view on a subject under debate, email us at tips at bostonist dot com. Bostonist does not endorse any opinions expressed in MassDebate.

The initial installment of MassDebate deals with the proposed redevelopment of the historic Shreve, Crump & Low building at the corner of Arlington and Boylston in Back Bay. The Druker Company, which developed Atelier|505, among many other buildings, proposes a mixed-use retail and office space for the site. Some support business development in Back Bay; others want to preserve a historic building recognized for its architecture. Citizens have until August 1 to weigh in on the project with the BRA (the contact person there is Jay Rourke).

Dan Shea of Save the Shreve, Crump & Low Building presents his take on the topic:

The City of Boston is about to tear down the last remaining historic structure on the south side of the Public Garden, a mistake akin to the destruction of the West End in its ignorance of Boston's long-term economic interests and greatest assets.

The proposed development on the site is a nine-story, 220,000 square foot space occupying roughly half of the south side of its block on Boylston Street. While aesthetics are often subjective, local architects have taken to calling developer Ron Druker's proposed building a "landscraper" and urban planners describe it as "Soviet" in trying to create as much rentable space as zoning laws allow.

The four buildings it would replace form a corner of the US government's National Register of Historic Places' Back Bay Historic District. They are all classified as "notable" or "significant" buildings by the Boston Landmarks Commission. And as the longtime home of Shreve's, the Arlington Building is a landmark for generations of Bostonians. Yet because the buildings are not officially landmarked by the city, they can be destroyed with little oversight.

Druker and some area businesses argue that the corner is shabby and needs to be revitalized. This is true--but why should that involve the destruction of the buildings at the site? If modern businesses need more space in these buildings, four or five floors of additional space could be added to the buildings while preserving their facades and retaining the visual diversity and beauty that they give to shoppers, churchgoers, diners and tourists at the street level. Druker says it is impossible to preserve the buildings' facades because of the water mains and subway station below, but his argument has yet to be supported by independent, third-party analysis.

I spent about 4 hours on a recent weekend gauging public opinion of the project. Residents and tourists alike were aghast that the city could even fathom allowing the destruction of historic and beautiful components of the Back Bay. I collected well over 200 signatures against it, averaging out to just under a signature a minute.

Sadly, the city has been absent from this process. While the Boston Redevelopment Authority--which destroyed the West End and razed historic neighborhoods to build the Central Artery and the Mass Pike's extension--actively supports the project and has been hostile to those who oppose it, the City Council and Mayor need to step in to help arrange for improvement of the existing structures without demolishing them.

The city's approach to development in this case is not appropriate for a world-class city whose identifying characteristic is the very type of building Druker wants to raze. To help modernize Newbury and Boylston Streets, the city could set up a business improvement zone and help them with marketing and other needs rather than advocating wholesale demolition of their buildings because they are "too old and unmodern" Many of Europe's grandest cities remain commercially vibrant in areas full of much older structures.

The City Council and Mayor Menino need to think about the city's long-term and strategic interests of this project: What will draw people to Boston or the Back Bay in 30 years? Will recent "landscrapers" of pre-cast materials or older, exquisitely handcrafted buildings do a better job attracting businesses and residents? I for one believe Druker's proposed building will be declared a mess--if it is even built. With no tenants lined up, millions of square feet of office space under construction across the city, and a tough economic climate, an empty lot could be in place on the Public Garden much longer than anyone wants.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's counterpoint on MassDebate!