Developer who tore down historic theater to make way for a hole in the ground proposes similar idea on Mass. Ave.
By adamg - 11/23/09 - 4:23 pm
Well, of course, the Kensington Investment Co. says this time it won't just scoop out a series of buildings on Mass. Ave. and then replace it with several gazillion tons of fill like it did with the Gaiety Theatre on Washington Street. Still, as John Ford notes, the Harvard Club and the Eliot Hotel have teamed up to try to stop its propsed new hole 50,000-square foot office and retail complex.
Comments
I will bet money that Menino
By anon (not verified) - 11/23/09 - 5:36 pm
I will bet money that Menino is behind this one just like he was the Gaeity. This is what the city gets for voting Menino back in and we deserve what we get--another hole in the ground.
Whit
93 Mass Ave?
By anoneemouse (not verified) - 11/23/09 - 10:02 pm
Is this 93-97 Mass Ave/367 Newbury?
If so, 1) John Ford didn't report the whole story from B&T (which I don't read anymore), or Van Voorhis didn't report it accurately himself, and 2) the Harvard Club and Eliot Hotel owners changed their story.
93 Mass Ave/367 Newbury was approved for rehab of the existing building (the "mattress store" building on Mass Ave), demo of The Other Side Cafe and a building to replace the Other Side.
At the time, the club and the hotel both objected the shadows and the noise of construction. Both parties objected strongly to any work of any kind, at this location.
I have no interest or prejudice in this matter, except that the facts are known accurately. Their concerns may be with merit, but these were not the concerns as of last winter.
And the objections are?
By fenwayguy - 11/24/09 - 12:49 am
It's not reported in the real estate blog, and non-subscribers can't read the B&T article. What are they objecting to now? You'd think they'd prefer tonier neighbors; the existing buildings are certainly not "first class properties".
Don't get sentimental about
By anon (not verified) - 11/24/09 - 12:32 am
Don't get sentimental about the Gaiety unless you lived in the 50's or 60's as someone who remembered the theater when it still operated as a legitimate theater. The Combat Zone sealed the fate of this property. Nobody cared (White, Flynn, et al.) because it was in the Zone. For twenty years, this place literally was rained on in the interior. If used as a porno theater or anything else that would have kept a roof on it, then, maybe it could have been saved like the Paramount. In the end, there was nothing left, period. If anyone walked into this unbelievable scene of nothingness of plaster, seats, holes in the floor, etc., you would agree that it needed to come down before someone died in there. Way to go Kensington.
The Paramount was closed longer than the Gaiety was
By Ron Newman - 11/24/09 - 1:25 am
The Paramount closed in 1976. The Gaiety kept operating (as the Publix) into the early 1980s. Why save one and not the other?
The Paramount was preserved
By anon (not verified) - 11/24/09 - 2:15 am
The Paramount was preserved half fixed up as a deal to build the new Ritz 10 or so years ago. It's being rebuilt today as part of Emerson College. The Paramount, unlike the Gaiety, had so much money poured in 10 years ago, it was guaranteed to survive (linkage) regardless of its condition. If it was as wrecked as the Gaiety and the Modern (also another hole that should have been leveled 20 years ago), it wouldn't have mattered. The Paramount would survive. I think the BRA thinks names are very important when it comes to development.
My Recollection
By Stevil - 11/24/09 - 10:52 am
Is that the Gaiety wasn't in such bad shape when Kensington bought it - but they ignored maintenance (and did things like not fix leaks in the roof) so the building couldn't be saved guaranteeing that they could later develop the property.
I'm more sad
By Megan - 11/24/09 - 12:51 pm
that the Other Side Cafe will have to move (be closed?) to be replaced by the loading area for the new building.