clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

More Tales of the Exploding Ross

The Ross Dress-For-Less that exploded (or didn't explode) stopping the magnificent Los Angeles subway in its tracks continues to stir memories from people who saw the exploding (or not exploding) fiery fury first hand.

A reader at the center of the controversy emails her remembrances from when she was just a young starry eyed Ross shopper, hoping to end the debate once and for all. "Well...since I'm the one who originally brought up the exploding Ross I assume your annoyed reader has only me to blame for the Bruckheimer imagery. Yes, The Ross structure for the most part remained intact. But what did occur.... (I lived a bit north at the time). One hell of a large explosion. Scaring many a neighbor. As I recall sidewalks slabs of concrete bounced a couple feet into the air landing where they landed then small flames proceeded to shoot up from small cracks and fissures in the streets and sidewalks for the next couple of days... so, no Ross didn't disintegrate but the imagery was still amazingly. Jerry Bruckish...imo"

Another reader sends us a link to a report from two eggheads at Stanford that gives a basic synopsis of the happenings that day:

Late in the afternoon of March 24, 1985, methane gas that had been accumulating ignited in an auxiliary room of the Ross Dress-For-Less Department Store located on Third Street, in the Wilshire-Fairfax District of Los Angeles. The resulting explosion blew out the windows and partially collapsed the roof of the structure, reduced the store interior to a heap of twisted metal and resulted in injuries requiring hospital treatment of twenty-three people. Police closed off four blocks around an eerie scene of spouting gas flames that continued through the night. Explosion and blast are basically the same thing right? We hope this finally puts to rest the issue of the exploding Ross.
· Rumblings & Bumblings: Sunny Tuesday Edition; MYTH BUSTER [Curbed LA]