Roche Bros. grocery proposed for 240 Elm Street; Meeting September 10

[ron_newman]

According to a Facebook post from Alderman-at-Large Jack Connolly, Roche Bros. proposes to open a grocery store in the former Social Security Building, 240 Elm Street. They will hold an on-site meeting to discuss this on Wednesday, September 10 at 6 pm.

Roche Bros. is a local family-owned supermarket chain whose current locations are mostly in the beyond-128 suburbs. They are now building their first urban store in the former Filene's Basement space in Downtown Crossing.

I really hope this happens. I think it suits Davis Square's needs better than the previous World of Beer and Beer Works proposals.

ETA: Based on the illustration that Jack provided, what they actually seem to be proposing is a new sub-brand of smaller Roche stores called "Brothers Marketplace", whose first location opened in Weston a few months ago. Their Facebook page is more informative than their rather skeletal website.

Comments

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[unferth.livejournal.com]

McKinnon's produce has improved considerably - it's still not a massive set of options, but the quality is way up from what I remember around 2008-2009. Now it's up to acceptable levels, at least for me.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[srakkt.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree at all, but I think that the reason they've done so is because the decline and subsequent disappearance of Farmer's Bounty.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[wintahill.livejournal.com]

I do not disagree with you guys and I do not think that concerns about McKinnon's or Dave's for that matter should be a reason to oppose a Roche Brothers going into the space. I like both of those businesses a lot and I want them to continue to exist in Davis. I am honestly happy that it looks like we might finally have a prospective tenant who will fill this long vacant space.

My comment about crickets was more directed at the many people in this community that where adamant and vocal in their opposition to the previous beer related proposals for this same location. Myself and some other posters were essentially called delusional when we suggested that much of the concerns raised about the the prior proposals were being exaggerated and were being applied very selectively, with the intent to ultimately drive away a totally viable new business looking to come to our city. It was very obvious then as it is now, that many people who said they are opposed to chains coming to the square can quite easily champion a chain business as long as it is place they would personally like to have in that location. Concerns about the health of existing local business who might face increased competition can easily be explained away. Liquor licenses that were supposedly only available for under-served areas of the city, because Davis is doing just fine already and it has too many establishment serving liquor as it is can suddenly have the restrictions on them removed. I could go on and on here. All of this just reinforces what I have been saying all along, a small group of residents stirred up by Alderman Gewirtz, used many dubious arguments to essentially drive away two prospective tenants from a long vacant building. They used these PC arguments, to hide their true motive which was from the beginning to drive a business they personally did like away. They succeeded and many here applauded them, I on the other hand was disgusted.

Dirty politics is just as distasteful when "your side" wins. I want no part of that in my community. Lets all hope that this time all parties involved can behave in a more rational manner.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[ron_newman]

All along, some of those folks were just saying "We don't need another bar; what we need is a grocery store." Now that we are (I hope) getting one, let's support it.

Re: Rather than competition, complementary.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

what Ron's saying. I said, about a week after the clossing of the SSI Office, that what I'd really love to see in there would be a Trader Joe's. All the other Trader Joe's around here are a pain to get to on transit if you live in Davis (at the time, I was in Porter, I admit).

I have no problem with chains. But yet another pub....not so much.

RE: Re: Rather than competition, complementary.

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

I agree, we have enough bars. Groceries are what's needed, and Roche is a wonderful chain.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[srakkt.livejournal.com]

I was out of the area when the Beer Works proposals were being made; for my own part, I am of the opinion that we don't want to just approve all businesses - because Davis is a location where any business can do well, we ought to be looking at ways in which we can diversify the sorts of businesses we've got.
To that end, I think Yet Another Bar is just as bad as Yet Another Froyo Place or Yet Another Burrito Place - all of the arguments we've heard over and over again for the last fifteen years.
So while, yes, Beer Works would have done well, so will nearly anything that goes into that space. Nothing has, not because of community opposition, but because the landlord refuses to actually repair or maintain that property.
I can't speak to the involvement of any aldermen, and I wouldn't even claim that there are sides to the issue. We all want to live somewhere great. Getting people in a community involved in these decisions isn't dirty politics. It's the way politics is *supposed* to happen.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[teko.livejournal.com]

I was at the Beer Works meetings and came away very split. On the one hand, what Beer Works was proposing would be a huge, much-needed aesthetic upgrade to that building and would raise the bar of how Davis Square could look. It was classy, respectful, and had good ideas behind it. And given that the other option at the time was a crappy-looking 'mini mall' of a smoke shop, massage place, and Burger King, I was all for it. On the other hand, well... it's a Beer Works.

I disagree with the way Alderman Gewirtz personally handled the situation, but if it has a positive outcome, at least we avoided the worst case scenario.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[wintahill.livejournal.com]

I am mostly in agreement with you. There certainly is a need for community meetings around proposed new developments where the public can air their concerns and ask questions. The local alderman should definitely be involved in organizing and publicizing these types of meetings. My problem is when the processes is essentially hijacked and used to push a very narrow minded personal agenda. These meetings are supposed encourage discussion and compromise, not to be used to drive away "undesirable" new businesses. While some here may see the concerns over parking and deliveries to this new potential Roche Brothers store as "trivial", these are the types of things that should be discussed at a community meeting. Myself and many others feel that similar "trivial" issues were hyped up and used purposefully as roadblocks to ultimately derail a mostly harmless business proposal that would fill a long vacant space. At that time there was no valid grocery store proposal on the table at all, it was just speculation at best. I support the Roche Brothers proposal just as I did the previous proposals, I want to see a viable business open in that long empty space this year not maybe a few years from now.

As far as my comment on dirty politics, need I remind you of the VFW Hall/condo development circus that was discussed in great detail here several years ago. It was very informative and it really opened my eyes. Whether you were for or against that proposal, you must agree that Alderman Gewirtzs' little end run around the process to get the MBTA vent parcel rezoned was clearly not what someone negotiating in good faith would do. After months of litigation and numerous compromises by the developer the project was explicitly approved by the city. She could not deal with that apparently and used her influence to kill it be any means necessary after her other attempts ultimately failed. This greatly shapes my opinion that alderman Gewirtz was never negotiating in good faith on residents behalf to make an acceptable compromise on the World of Beer/BeerWorks proposals. She wanted those projects stopped and she succeeded by abusing the valid political process for community involvement. That is what I find distasteful and what I mean by dirty politics.

RE: Rather than competition, complementary.

[teko.livejournal.com]

I completely agree that the way Alderman Gerwirtz handled both proposals was surprisingly dishonest.

My experience with these community meetings is that the moderators seem unable to make them very productive; they tend to get mired in minutae. One person after another will bring up issues that the folks proposing a business had already answered: "Yes, but will there be TV's showing sports?"

I feel like people who are in the business of having products delivered to their store on a daily basis probably have a pretty good handle on the feasibility of food delivery, so I hope they can simply give a decisive answer rather than issues like that taking up most of the time.