Related to SS Building issues

[emcicle.livejournal.com]

I just noticed in the Boston Globe article about the structural issues of the Social Security building this morning that it states that Roche Brothers has pulled out of moving into that space. That's the first I've heard about it falling through, and I'll be disappointed if it's true.

Comments

[keithn.livejournal.com]

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.

[emcicle.livejournal.com]

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

It really is a total clusterf**k

[ron_newman]

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 .

[teko.livejournal.com]

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?

[ron_newman]

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

[emcicle.livejournal.com]

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?)

[ron_newman]

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.

[teko.livejournal.com]

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

[keithn.livejournal.com]

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.

[wintahill.livejournal.com]

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.

[keithn.livejournal.com]

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.

[pywaket.livejournal.com]

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.