davis_square | Related to SS Building issues

Took me by surprise, too. Here is the article for those who have not already seen it. (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/23/portions-davis-square-building-somerville-risk-collapse/IIlnZTydNLRCLMpHvjhBJP/story.html) The quote is from the mayor himself.

Thanks for linking it!

It came from the Mayor through the Globe, so there's no reason to doubt that it's true.

What a complete and utter disaster this whole saga has been. The developer, the zoning board, and the board of aldermen all couldn't have done much worse of a job if they had tried.

I think it's about time for the Mayor to step in and use his full weight to put an end to this fiasco. Whatever it takes. This situation has been an embarrassment for years and now with the street closures it's reached a whole new level of dysfunction.

Edited 2015-06-23 16:35 (UTC)

I guess i don' t doubt it, but was wishful thinking that it was a mistake.

It really is a total clusterf**k

I can't really blame the zoning board, who approved Roche Bros. almost seven months ago.

I talked to the Roche Bros. marketing director, Dena Zigun, a few weeks ago. She said that the landlord and Roche Bros. had failed to reach an agreement about construction easements, and that this was not the city's fault. I specifically asked if she wanted people to lobby the city in support of Roche Bros, and she said that would not be needed.

If you or anyone else would like to speak to her, she's at 781-694-5476 .

Edited 2015-06-23 18:49 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, Roche Bros is saying that they presented their plans to the landlord, and he rejected what they wanted to do with his crumbling building, despite approval from the zoning board and the city?

I think it had more to do with getting easements from other neighboring property owners, but frankly I'm not 100% sure.

I guess I also misunderstood earlier comments about this, too. I thought it was other neighbors who weren't granting easements for construction, not the actual landlord who presumably is interested in something going into the space. I feel like that doesn't make sense.

also, if all the businesses planning to go in have now pulled out, what internal construction are they doing in there? (besides not fixing the facade?)

I may be misinterpreting what she said, so it's best to talk directly to her. If you do, please tell us what she says to you.

I too wonder what all the current construction is for, if it's not for Roche Bros.

The permit on the building currently just reads something to the effect of "gut interior of building".

The ZBA shot down every proposal for that building except Roche Brothers because that's exactly what the city was trying to force the developer to put in there, whether economically viable or not. Roche Brothers fell through and now we're back to square one. Why it fell through, we'll probably never get a straight answer. I wish we had a local newspaper worth a damn in this city.

If the city wants to dictate exactly how the building is used they should make an offer for it and buy it... except then when things inevitability go south, they wouldn't be able to pass the blame.

Edited 2015-06-23 21:36 (UTC)

As much as I dislike how the Zoning board, the Ward 6 Alderman, and various "community groups" handled the previous proposals that were brought forward for new tenants in the Social Security Building I am not sure the city actually owning it would improve the situation. They do not have a very good track record either.

The city owns the old Homans building over by my house and it has sat vacant for many years. This past winter it was declared structurally unsound and half of Medford Street has been blocked off from traffic every since. I have not seen any actual construction happening to shore it up and make it safer, all of the construction happening around it is for the GLX. The city seems pretty content just to ignore it, I guess they can't sue or fine themselves for being bad landlords though.

That's pretty much my point. Sorry for not being clearer.

The city has basically given itself full authority over that building without any of the responsibility. My point is that it is a charade. I don't think the city should actually buy it, my point is that they should get out of the dictating business because it is going very poorly, as expected.

What the city should actually do is approve any reasonable proposal the owner puts forward for that building and let the market dictate what happens. We could have a restaurant and gym there already, but instead, partly due to the city's meddling, we have a crumbling ruin.

The city also needs to remove its stupid parking requirements for Davis Square businesses. People take the T to Davis Square. The parking requirements only serve to force owners to apply for a variance, which is the tool the ZBA uses to dictate what goes into a space or not. They don't give a crap about parking. It's just dirty politics.

Edited 2015-06-24 22:12 (UTC)

Actually, that's 2 reasons to doubt it's true. The Glob hasn't really been a bastion of accurate reporting in recent years, and Curtatone has an agenda.

what I don't understand is the lack of oversight with this whole situation from the start to this point; or was it follow thru in certain area's? Such a high traffic area and the actual incident that put the scaffolding/curtain around the building in the first place- I was shocked to hear that the owner of the building had not done any work at all on it. Even more surprising is that when residents want to do home improvements the hurdles they have to jump through to do simple things to beautify there home and improve the neighborhood seems out of place to what has happened here- now causing other people and business's to suffer.

Well, I guess we are back to square one now as far as locating an acceptable new tenant for the Social Security building, because the Crunch Gym pulled out as well. Unfortunately now the building is in worse physical shape than before and its' structural deterioration is negatively affecting other businesses and the safety of general public within the square.

What a mess.

I'm guessing the problem is that there's not much the city can do if the owner of a building just lets it sit there and rot. (See the former dance hall near Powderhouse.) They can eventually take it over, as they did with a couple of abandoned houses near Ball Square, but I imagine that's a lengthy and difficult legal process.

The city is a big part of the reason why the building is rotting. The owner of the building made a reasonable proposal almost two years ago for Beer Works and Crunch Gym to go into that space. Alderman Gewirtz and the ZBA (at her urging I suspect) launched some astroturfed opposition to the proposal and made it clear that nothing aside from an organic/locally sourced grocery store would be acceptable. During this whole process the owner of the building has had to maintain and pay taxes on a building not generating any income due to the city's stonewalling.

It finally looked like the city was going to get its wish, but now that has fallen through and we're back to square one.

Nobody is clean here, but the city has got to stop trying to dictate exactly how every piece of private property in the city is going to be used. This whole situation is precisely what happens when local governments try to do this.

Edited 2015-06-23 17:52 (UTC)

Wasn't one of the reasons BBW was turned down was that they didn't want to buy their liquor license on the open market, but wanted one of the special ones that the city had received that would usually be used for a smaller business?

In short, that was BS. The argument was actually that the "special" ones were reserved for "economic development" and that Davis Square didn't qualify. They ended up granting one a few months later to the Korean restaurant that replaced McDonalds, in Davis Square, so it was a BS argument. I wrote a long comment about this at the time:

http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3314035.html?thread=35879539#t35879539

Another related comment I made in the same thread:

http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3314035.html?thread=35893875#t35893875

Edited 2015-06-23 19:32 (UTC)

Fuck you, astroturfed. I've lived around Davis for >12 years* now and I sure didn't want BBW or Crunch there.
Also: "organic/locally sourced grocery store" doesn't describe Roche Bros as near as I know.
ETA: Reading further down the thread, ok, the Brothers Marketplace concept might well fit that description.

(* I expect to be priced out of the neighborhood in the next <5 years.)

Edited 2015-06-25 21:52 (UTC)

what's wrong with Crunch as a second-floor tenant above Roche Bros? I expect it would have zero impact on anyone who isn't a customer of theirs.

Brothers Marketplace doesn't have much of a web site, but they do have an active Facebook page.

Edited 2015-06-25 21:59 (UTC)

The owner of that former dance hall near Powderhouse (in which I rent an apartment) claims he has been tied up with zoning issues (and worse). He's not just letting it sit there out of disregard or laziness.

What does he want to do, and what are the zoning issues that are preventing him from doing it?

I'd love to see that become a live music venue (but I don't know if you do; how's the soundproofing?)

Edited 2015-06-23 19:47 (UTC)

I'd rather not speak for him, and I believe he doesn't want to comment publicly. I just wanted to point out that not every vacant building is due to a negligent landlord.

Is the rest of the building sound? It looks derelict from the outside.

The concrete steps out front took a beating from the snow & salt this winter, but the building itself is fine. About a third of the ground floor was demolished to make room for off-street parking, which I believe would be required by zoning laws for whatever ends up downstairs. I think the rest of the ground floor is mostly gutted, but I've never been down there. The apartments on the 2nd & 3rd floors are old but nice. I've lived here happily for 6 years.

FWIW, I find that I am much less disappointed to hear the Roche Bros. is pulling out than I would have been a few weeks ago. Roche Bros. opened a location at downtown crossing near where I work a few weeks ago. (It's in the former Filenes's Basement.) I thought it would be great, I could pick up this and that as I headed into the T on my way home. Then I saw the prices. A lot of things were literally twice as expensive as Stop and Shop. There is a limit to how much I am willing to pay for convenience.

The location that was to open in Davis was their new offshoot, "Brothers Market", which would have been more akin to Bees Knees Supply Co. or the grocery area at Dave's Fresh Pasta – a specialty high-end grocer featuring locally made products, organic produce, etc. Their products would not have been everyday items or at all inexpensive.

It sounded to me like its closest competitor (both geographically and philosophically) would be Pemberton Farms.

Related to SS Building issues

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject