Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

beta_vulgaris t1_it5hrwb wrote

I hate that this building was hastily demolished with absolutely no construction activity for years. It’s been a gaping hole on Wickenden Street, which is otherwise thriving. At this point I’d honestly be shocked if they actually build a structure there for a restaurant that’s been closed for years.

29

FunLife64 t1_it8dyh0 wrote

Come on. There are sketchy buildings on this street, buildings with plastic siding, etc. The old building was a disaster and not functional. Everyone wants to keep stuff, but nobody wants to pay for it.

The fact that they are rebuilding is great.

5

beta_vulgaris t1_it8kxtw wrote

The building was extremely charming and beautiful. Most of the reason I and many others enjoyed going there was because of the cozy and beautiful historic interiors. If they rebuild, that’s great, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

7

orm518 t1_itlqaew wrote

Looks like you fell for the interior design. The article says the interiors were decked out with Home Goods items. It was old. It was not historically significant.

4

beta_vulgaris t1_itmcnd4 wrote

I never said it was historically significant, just that the attractive, charming old building was most of the reason I ever went there and I’m sure I’m not the only one. The rush to demolish the building without a real, timely plan to rebuild left a bad impression on many members of the community, including myself. If they actually rebuild, I wish them the best of luck. Not so sure cupcakes are quite the draw they were back in 2010, but I guess we’ll see.

1

FunLife64 t1_it9tx02 wrote

I mean it was in theory - but what you see on the surface only means so much. I don’t doubt it was going to be a ridiculous, unrealistic cost to “make right”. Nobody was going to pay that - and anyone that would would have made it something people would have said doesn’t fit in (places that require huge investors are never charming or quirky).

Everyone loves to complain!

0

rhodyjourno OP t1_it4r2xy wrote

FROM THE STORY: On his left shoulder, Dan Becker’s only tattoo is the logo of the first restaurant he ever owned in his hometown: the Duck & Bunny.
For the decade it was open, Duck & Bunny was a snuggery that was nothing short of a smash hit. They served speciality crêpes, charcuterie plates, scones, and gourmet cupcakes. Their afternoon tea time was served with a selection of finger sandwiches and cookies. Cocktails had a delicate elegance to them, some prosecco-laced and flavored with lavender or garnished with bright berries.

The building was painted pastel pink, which blended with the rest of colorful, but quaint, Wickenden Street. Inside, the walls were adorned with paintings of ducks and bunnies that were playful — like a duck wearing pearl earrings.
The snuggery was an appropriately warm and inviting place, mimicking the snuggery taverns of old England, where the owners — Dan Becker and his wife Jessica — were able to marry their desire of opening a bar and a teashop together, respectively. And they earned numerous restaurant awards from local publications.
But since 2019, the Duck & Bunny hasn’t been open. Becker told the Globe in an exclusive interview that the Duck & Bunny, what he calls his “most prized restaurant,” will begin rebuilding soon and make its full return “within the next year.”

READ MORE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/10/19/metro/three-years-after-closing-renovations-providences-duck-bunny-plans-finally-rebuild/

18

justincase1021 t1_it5mhyd wrote

A friend of mine just took over the ownership of The Point Tavern next door. They will be happy to not have a giant eyesore of a hole next door.

12

Locksmith-Pitiful t1_it59hyb wrote

Didn't they knock down a historical building?

I don't have any thoughts on the matter I've just read there was a lot of controversy around it.

6

orm518 t1_it5ehnx wrote

Read the article. It was not “historic” it was just old. It was nominally part of a historic register district but that’s just an honorific title not any kinda of mandate to protect it or statement that the building itself is of historic interest.

13

Dextrous456 t1_it6yjqe wrote

Actually, the building was considered historic, according to the nomination to the national register of historic places, which is on file at the state preservation commission. But the city didn't consider it worthy of preservation, which is all that matters in cases like this.

2

Halloweenie23 t1_it5mc3u wrote

I think any building that age is historic and becoming a rarity as time goes on. If he wanted to build a new building he should have found somewhere else to do it.

0

orm518 t1_itlq0wq wrote

He owned the building! And there was nothing deeming the structure worthy of preservation. We still have private property rights in America, as far as I'm aware. My friend lives in a 1785 farmhouse out in Lincoln, they could knock it down tomorrow if they got a town demo permit.

0

NotAFlamingo t1_it6vc9k wrote

IIRC the building was falling apart. Cracked foundation, among other major structural issues. Repairing and renovating it would have cost more and been more time consuming than replacing it, supposedly.

13

FunLife64 t1_it8eh12 wrote

I don’t think “supposedly” is necessary. People get all bent out of shape about historic buildings - but nobody wants to OR offers to pay for it. That block has cement buildings, apt buildings with plastic siding, etc - this idea its some picturesque block of a historic street is stilly.

3

lovecraft_401 t1_it8hkcw wrote

Letting a building go unused and virtually neglected for over two years then claiming they had no choice but to tear it down is kind of bullshit.

They closed the business in 2019 saying they needed to do renovations, did nothing for two years, then in 2021 tore it down. What could’ve been done during those two years to prevent the tear down? Did they intentionally wait until the building was too far gone because tearing it down was always in their plan?

0

FunLife64 t1_itbnckl wrote

They were probably trying to find the $$$$ to do so. It’s not rocket science.

3

Isthis_really2020ugh t1_itkblca wrote

If only I could think of a reason why construction would stop on a restaurant for 2 years in 2020 and 2021?? 🤔🙄

2

lovecraft_401 t1_itl6q2l wrote

They bought it in July 2018 then closed it in March of 2019, a full year before Covid hit. They did absolutely nothing to renovate it until tearing it down in 2021.

2

Isthis_really2020ugh t1_itwdkqu wrote

Sounds like they were lucky to NOT have begun construction in 2019... I don't know why people get so upset; are you being materially damaged by the skyline of Wickendon St. Missing a building? Or just need to gripe about something?

It's not like it's dragging property values down. Housing is outrageously expensive on the East Side. Enjoy the extra parking spots available, then support a small business when it opens.

2