Tuesday, February 8, 2011

30 Market Square: So, what's up with that?

Market Square now has very few vacancies. I count two: 15 Market Square, which housed Abode until just before the end of the year and 30 Market Square. Hopefully, 15 will be occupied soon enough, but 30 is an odd exception on the square.

Obviously 36 and 37 Market Square are momentarily vacant, but they are both under massive construction. 37 seems likely to be finished the spring and we already know that Blue Coast Burrito is coming soon to that location. I am a bit concerned that nothing has seemed to happen at 36 for a long time. Last July Josh Flory at Property Scope published a
new architectural rendering provided by the address' Facebook page, but it appears, unless I missed it, the Facebook page has disappeared. That corner is so important to link the north end of the square with Gay Street. Does anybody want to give us more recent information?
A couple of guys pass the afternoon in front of 30 Market Square.
It's 30 Market Square that seems a mystery, to me. It's a great location, directly beside Preservation Pub and part or all of it is in use by Weeks, Ambrose and McDonald, Inc. If all of it is in use, then why the boarded up facade? It seems ironic that an architectural firm, of all things, would want such an ugly front. I can't imagine help would not be provided by CBID to improve it. As the last ugly spot on Market Square, how could they say, "no?"

As I searched around the Internet, I found that WATE did a
story about 30 Market Square last summer. According to their investigation, it is owned by William Ambrose of the firm and no permit had been requested to improve the building. He would not talk to their reporter. I don't get it. It seems bad for their image to be the last boarded up store-front on the square - particularly given that they are an architecural firm and the money should be free or matched from CBID, so what's up?

If you follow the link above, you can view the report from WATE from last summer and you can see what they did. It seems like they gave Mr. Ambrose plenty of chances to respond.

Does anyone know Mr. Ambrose? Is there a reason I can't see that he would not want to do this for himself or his community? When the story was posted on WATE, the only response it elicited was from the property rights folks who maintained it was his business and no one elses. Is that what you guys think?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home