WRA votes to purchase Denholm Building for $3M
Photo | Timothy Doyle
Worcester's Denholm Building
The Worcester Redevelopment Authority voted unanimously to authorize the $3 million purchase of 484-500 Main St. in Worcester, with the deal expected to close by mid-month.
Plans have been in the works for the WRA to acquire and demolish the building so that the property can be redeveloped.
The City Council voted in April to authorize a $6.8 million loan to cover the purchase, demolition costs, relocation for office condo owners, and other costs.
The former department store had been used as offices, mostly by nonprofits, which owned the 18 condos in the building. The building had come under disrepair in recent years, and the costs to renovate were too much for the condo association to bear.
Occupants of the building will have four months to vacate. There was discussion in the meeting about the possibility of tenants being allowed an extension, which met concerns of the transition process “dragging on.”
A Tennessee-based property management company, LTL-Schock Group, has been contracted to assist in relocating organizations that owned condos in the building.
The WRA also voted on Monday to contract Worcester's NAI Glickman Kovago & Jacobs to continue to provide property management services in the building while the tenants remain.
Once home to a popular department store, Denholm & McKay Co., the Denholm Building was a symbol of downtown Worcester’s past as a bustling center filled with crowds shopping at countless retail shops.
The city is banking that redeveloping the site will continue the ongoing push to make Main Street a bustling city center again.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
This is why Government doesn't belong in business. The owners of the building made poor decisions for many years when deciding to not improve the property. Now the taxpayers are rescuing them from themselves. Building cost $3,000,000. Paying for relocation of tenants from a decaying building $3,800,000? Yup, another great deal like Polar Park.
1 Comments