Riverview Condominium residents have been evacuating their homes speedily over the past month due to recently discovered structural issues in the building, including low concrete strength and corrosion. Now they face yet another challenge: home insurance companies denying their claims, and the looming potential of losing their homes permanently with no financial assistance in sight.
The property management company met with residents Tuesday to discuss options of repairing, selling or redeveloping the building. Resident Judy Kugel is unconvinced they will be able to move back at all.
“The building would cost so much to bring it up to code, it’s full of asbestos, and it could just be unaffordable,” Kugel said. “I am quite sure the building will be taken down, though that hasn’t been officially said.”
According to a unit owner who attended Tuesday’s meeting, a consultant told owners it could cost more than $30 million just to repair the Riverview enough to allow residents to move back in. More precise estimates won’t be available until mid- or late January, he said.
Falling through the cracks
In the meantime, multiple condo owners report denials from home insurance companies on the cost of unexpected relocation and, for those leasing out their apartments, lost rental income.
“They’re saying ‘You evacuated the building because of issues relating to the whole building, but your apartment is intact, so we’re not paying anything,’” said Joshua Segal, who has lived at Riverview for 30 years. “Presumably we were insured for $50,000, which in Cambridge would’ve been about a year’s worth of rental, and as of now, they’re refusing to pay anything.”
“They’re in business to not pay. That’s how they make money. It’s horrendous,” Kugel said.
Home insurance generally does not cover damage from structural issues and focuses generally on damage from fire and natural disasters or burglaries. Residents also said that insurance companies have been unwilling to pay because the evacuation was preventative, not in response to a collapse.
“Some people were told that insurance wouldn’t cover anything because the building had not yet fallen down. It means, like that building in Florida, it needs to fall down, kill people and then you can get your money back. Which seems absurd,” said a resident who spoke anonymously. “What is insurance for? Just because we took proactive action to be safe, we get penalized? That seems crazy.”
The resident referred to a condominium building in Surfside, Florida, that collapsed in 2021 due to structural failures and killed 98 people. The collapse, which was preceded by concrete problems and cracks in the building, led to legislative changes in inspection and structural safety requirements in Florida.
No one to hold responsible yet
It is unclear how the building had such serious mistakes in the first place, and who can be held responsible, in part because Riverview, a 77-unit building at 221 Mount Auburn St., was built in 1963. Many of those who initially worked on the building, including developer Max Kargman, are no longer alive.
“Who do we sue?” the anonymous resident said. “How did this building ever pass inspection in the first place? And if this building passed inspection despite these defects, what other buildings in Cambridge passed inspection erroneously and might be in danger of falling down?”
Cambridge Inspectional Services has yet to respond to requests for more information on the initial building inspection, though assistant commissioner Jacob Lazzara said in an email, “This is a unique situation in our city and speaks to the importance of property management, boards and associations of larger, shared buildings to conduct proactive inspections regardless of when they were built.”
For some of the residents, the condo has been their main or only asset.
“Some people, this is what they depended on to live for the rest of their lives,” Kugel said. “They don’t have money to go anywhere else. And the money, we’re not getting back for years, if ever.”
“My life savings are in that building. It’s been horribly traumatic,” said the resident who spoke anonymously.
Property management mishaps
The residents also expressed dissatisfaction with property management company Thayer & Associates.
“They haven’t been real cooperative about things, like tax abatements now that the building is worthless. And we got such blowback on moving,” said Segal, 78. “The moving company doubled the price because of the building’s rules, so I got a bunch of friends together and we moved ourselves.”
“They just made it impossible for us,” he added.
Some residents suspect that the management company did not do enough to prevent the issue through earlier inspection.
“There were cracks in our building that were visible, and I feel that the management company was negligent in not doing more inspecting, but that’s just my own personal opinion,” Kugel said.
Thayer & Associates has not responded to a request for comment as of Tuesday evening.
“Profound loss” of a community
The former residents emphasized the loss of home and community that has been felt throughout the process. Some moved into Riverview in part for the community aspect.
“We had regular cookouts, a Christmas party, a Halloween party. The people were just wonderful,” Kugel said. “Now everybody looks like they’ve lost their best friend.”
“Though I can’t speak to the profound loss that unit owners are experiencing, I have lived here for almost 15 years and I have been honored to be a part of Riverview’s deeply civic ecosystem,” Davis said.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Please stop calling these luxury condos.
No definition of luxury includes a poorly maintained building from 1963 with numerous code violations and in such poor condition it may need to be torn down and replaced.
Luxury is a poor real estate descriptor generally, used by realtors for marketing without any meaning. Most buildings described as luxury in Cambridge would be considered average in many other cities around the country that build new housing. The existing housing stock of Cambridge still includes many homes in poor condition, so new homes may be nicer in comparison, but that certainly does not make them luxury.
Agreed QWERTY, there’s major grade inflation with the term “luxury condos,” and honestly, its a little callous toward the residents who arent by any means all luxiry or fancy people.
What a heart wrenching situation. Can they sue the Kargman the developer’s kids who inherited his wealth that he made of his scammy, shoddy building? So sad, all of it. And all while we don’t have enough housing in the city.