MassDebate: Preserve History or Build Business? Take Two

Yesterday, Dan Shea weighed in against demolishing the Shreve, Crump & Low building in Back Bay. Today we argue the opposing side. Bostonist does not officially endorse any particular view on this matter.

The July 16 Boston Redevelopment Authority meeting about the fate of the Shreve, Crump & Low building did its best to pit money-minded developers against the common man, with the Druker Company portraying its project as a foregone conclusion and trying to silence the few citizens who dared speak against it. A development representative at the meeting even interrupted an elderly woman's question about the project with words that amounted to, "So you're trying to say rich people drive and poor people don't? Well, I drive, because I'm rich." There is no excuse for reacting so rudely to a citizen entitled to speak her mind, and such behavior only furthers public dislike for developers, as well as the feeling that developers swoop in from the outside to impose unaffordable buildings on an unaccepting public.

But it's necessary to separate a distate for developers from the need for a city to develop economically. Development representatives' sneers aside, the Druker Company has done its research and proposed a workable plan. The development claims to be in accordance with zoning regulations and the Public Garden Shadow Act. The building is expected to gain silver LEED certification, should not worsen traffic at area intersections, and will re-capture rainwater on the grounds. For a big business development, it sounds at least relatively friendly. The Druker Company also considered several alternatives to demolishing the Shreve, Crump & Low building: retaining and renovating (the resulting space would be too small), retaining only the Arlington building (too many upgrades needed, wouldn't mesh aesthetically with the new building, and wouldn't provide enough parking space), and retaining street facades only (not feasible to support facades during construction. Redevelopment may actually be an intelligent choice in this case.

At the BRA meeting, the president of the Back Bay Association may have put it best when she said, "Our love of historic structures is almost starting to strangle the economic vibrancy of the city." A manager from the Four Seasons said that his patrons rarely use the existing Shreve, Crump & Low building, which has "failed to thrive," and hoped that a new development on the site would add a new element to his visitors' experience in Boston. Another speaker said there was "compelling reason to demolish... [this] dilapidated building" and also voiced hope that the new structure would make a positive economic contribution to the city. Intelligent development could change that, making an underutilized space into one that thrives.

And it's not like the old building didn't have a chance. The Shreve, Crump & Low building was denied landmark status by the Boston Landmarks Commission at least twice. The Druker Company has been conducting research and seeking permits on this project for over two years, and the current development plan was unveiled this January. Those who want to save the building had their chance to do so.

But that doesn't mean the proposed development will thrive as is. Silver LEED is great, but why not gold? Why such a modern, glassy exterior--couldn't we make a bit more of an architectural nod to Boston's history? And while economic development is great for the city, why not add some sort of community focus--like retail space devoted to non-profits--as well? If this development is going to happen--which it looks like it will--it needs to be perfect to be worthwhile. Make your voice heard by contacting the BRA and letting them know what you want this historic spot to become for the city of Boston. And don't let this be the last time you speak up for what you want Boston to become--if citizens don't say anything, the city--and the developers--will let money do the talking.