News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

October 3, 2006

stores

Back Bay Apple Store blocked by escape clause

Posted Oct. 3, ’06, 9:17 AM PT by Dan Moren
Category | Apple » Stores

Fire EscapeGiven that approval for the construction of Boston’s Apple Store had been approved by the Back Bay Architectural Commission, it would seem to be smooth sailing, no? But, as you’ll soon learn, nothing in Boston has ever been smooth sailing. Proof? Two words: Big Dig. Right.

Anyway, the obstacle now in the way of the store’s construction is nothing more than a simple, wrought iron fire escape. Unfortunately, the fire escape emanates from the building next door, descending to the roof of the building which Apple plans on demolishing. This would presumably include destroying the fire escape itself.

I’m not sure if the issue at stake is safety, since the party raising the objection is not any sort of local agency but the owner of the neighboring building. Perhaps the fire escape is historical in some way? “It was on this metal staircase in 1775 that Paul Revere sat down to contemplate the skyline before his famous ride.” Well, Back Bay didn’t actually exist until 1882, but you get the idea. This city is just full of history, interesting and, um, invented.

Regardless, I’d guess that this problem will eventually be solved by Apple ponying up enough cash to replace the guy’s fire escape. And TV. And stereo. Hey, throw in a free computer or two while you’re at it.


6 Comments

wackybit Author Profile Page said:

So is the building next door someone's house? It'd be very very ironic if the guy next door didn't have a mac. Imagine the instant tech support you get, or if you want to check out a new computer that was introduced this morning, or new ipod. Or you just need to do some heavy movie editing on a MacPro. All that dude's gotta do is walk next door! So jealous!

October 3, 2006 9:46 AM
Matt said:

It might have crossed your mind that if the fire escape ends on the roof of a building that's about to be demolished, then once it's gone, the people in the building will have no place to go in case of fire, except through a door that now ends 2-3 floors above a construction site.

Would you really be OK with the idea that you couldn't escape a fire until a new building was finished next door? I didn't think so.

October 3, 2006 10:08 AM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

That was, naturally, my first conclusion. Given, however, that the roadblock is that consent has been withheld by the owner of the building and not by any sort of safety authority such as, say, the Fire Marshal, I concluded that there are probably alternative fire escapes from the building. That may be incorrect, but it's based on the best information I have at present.

October 3, 2006 10:43 AM
bruce rader said:

Why has that building owner been allowed to use another property for HIS fire escape? It seems to me that he should have to be granted an easement by apple.

October 3, 2006 11:56 AM
jayH said:

apple's architects could easily creat a fire escape solution for the apple building that would acomodate the one from this next door buinding, going down through the side of the store or someting... this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. that's why archictects and construction companies make big bucks. oh wait, did you mention the big dig? right, forget what i just said.

October 3, 2006 12:36 PM
Mark said:

Ummmm....? Drop the safety issue here, its the owner of the building who is responsible to find alternate means, if Apple helps the owner to solve this problem the owner should be grateful. Take this in perspective.....The building next door (that Apple intends to buy) catches on fire and spreads to the neighboring building (owner in question), now what good is the fire escape? Lets not dwell on this subject either, I realize that maybe there is no alternative, (due to expense...maybe) Bottom line is anything is possible when price is no object. Its a shame that a safety issue like this would put a price tag on a human life. Personally I feel the issue should have been addressed by the Fire Marshall along time ago.

October 3, 2006 12:43 PM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: