We were strolling downtown on Saturday evening and noticed a “contract pending” banner on the Bank of Salem Building (234 Pearl Street), which many of us remember as Jim’s Gun Room (recently, the ground floor was used for a wretched Budweiser-festooned swill den).Can anyone divulge the plan there?
Also, hopeful news: The May on-line edition of “The Visitor -- The Monthly Newsletter of St. Marks United Church of Christ” confirms that the church has received an offer (from an unidentified legal firm) for the bank building the church owns on the southeast corner of Spring and Bank streets. As the newsletter indicates, the church previously had been seeking approval to demolish the structure, but was not able to gain the requisite nod from the Historic Preservation Commission.
The grapevine continues to furiously hum about a prospective offer for the Reisz Furniture building (think: condos) on Main Street, but lips are sealed and concrete information is lacking.
North across Main Street, the (three?) older commercial buildings with interconnected ground floors that until recently housed the antique mall now are for up for grabs.
Does anyone know the current status of the former Abe’s Rental (next to Reisz), and the space previously occupied by Main Street Grind? The fortunes of these blocks could change very quickly if the rumored Reisz transaction comes to pass.
With Scribner Place Phase I construction just around the corner, speculation about tipping points already has begun. How long has it been since you could say that?
6 comments:
there does seem to be more buzz downtown these days...I think we'll know in a month if it's just buzz...Some folks are trying to do a deal for the Reisz building and it would include the space next door which might then become *in-fill* related to the Reisz scheme. I also heard the 234 Pearl building is closing this week and the new owner will use it for office space and I think, don't quote me, a deli downstairs. I was sorry to hear there was not a committment in place to restore the exterior, but I hope that's part of his plan. Like the other bank building on Bank and Spring, the 234 Pearl building is pretty integral to the historic fabric of that intersection...if someone could take that hideous *modern* outfit off the outside!
From my understanding, although the site had been in continuous commercial usage throughout the latter 19th and all of the 20th centuries, that building and its facade are original. Hideous? Perhaps. Representative of an architectural meme of its day? Yes. Aesthetically pleasing? That's a jump ball.
One of the tensions about preservation is whether a particular building style is desirable. There is a line of thought that says if it's ugly, you can tear it down. There is a line of thought that says if it isn't "historic" you can tear it down.
The whole "contributing" and "non-contributing" thing gives ammunition to those who want to level buildings and start with replicas of a particularly well thought of era.
But the thought that the bank building that birthed our Community Bank (er, Your Community Bank) will remain is a result to be applauded.
pretty high over head there..hmmm, i can see a very well constructed indoor bmx facitily fitting in there. yep....i have bike on the brains!
tommy
Sloburn: Last I heard, the Fine/assisted/retirement living thing was a go, and the plans were being drafted to start.
Randy - I was talking about the ugly facade on the 234 Pearl Building, as opposed to St Marks space, of which I know nothing. I have investigated the 234 Pearl Building enough to say it's iron collumned original facade is much preferable, from an aesthetic and historic standpoint, to the clumsy modernizing skin that was poured on it sometime mid-century. I'm not opposed in any way to ugly mid-century architecture, I just spent 5 years laying the survey out for a modern historic district on Cape Cod...I'm very hip to the square as I like to think...but pleeease, the delicate Victorian bank building under cover here is much more *valuable** But I do understand your point in general. It is true.
Sorry, G. I misread.
Post a Comment