Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry Boulevard but when I visit San Antonio, I go to the beautiful walkable historic district with the River Walk and enjoy the charm. SA and skyscrapers= who cares. There's plenty happening in SA.
I'm sorry Boulevard but when I visit San Antonio, I go to the beautiful walkable historic district with the River Walk and enjoy the charm. SA and skyscrapers= who cares. There's plenty happening in SA.
I was last there years ago, but I still tell people that the Riverwalk is my favorite thing in America located in a city I overall don't like. The skyline has something to do with that attitude.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,822 posts, read 2,703,999 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
What is wrong with you people? This developer is not even asking for any "gimmes" he is simply proposing an excellent idea that would that help revitalize the city. Would you rather see more section 8 housing, which was one of the referendum questions that sadly passed this election? Or a stupid baseball stadium?
Oh, come now. One might ask you the same question. There is absolutely nothing wrong--indeed everything right--about residents of a city, owners of houses and businesses in a city, being engaged in the discussion of a proposed development which has the potential to change the very nature of the city. Actually, the developer himself pitches that it would be transformative. We do have a say in what we transform into, and again the developer has pointed this out too.
I do think we need to keep an open mind about what sort of use those properties are put to, and I am open to exploring the idea of this proposal. But towering residential structures don't really seem to meet up with the stated mission to repurpose the I-195 land for high paying, long lasting jobs and economic growth of the city. And the developer is asking for gimmes, in the form of 20 years of Tax Incentives.
I am not convinced that filling the skyline with new towers will fundamentally improve the quality of life for the residents of our city. I am not sure the things that make Providence great demand that it have a skyline that wows. I am open to the proposal, but cautiously so, and I think Providence residents and business owners ought to have a voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9162
This city has such a tiny **** poor skyline, for those that have traveled on I290, you've probably noticed that even Worcester has a superior skyline. It needs some tall buildings, and NO tax incentive money should go towards the superman building. It is not the responsibility of tax payers to bail out investors such as the current owners of the superman building. Truthfully, I was hoping the developer wanted the land off Allens Avenue, to revitalize that entire eye sore.
I will second the disagreement with your notion that Worcester has a superior skyline. I do think that the Superman Building is the defining anchor of the Providence skyline, and without that anchor its appeal drops sharply.
It is interesting to me that you don't want to see one Tax Incentive dollar go to supporting the Superman Building, but are just fine with offering up 20 years of Tax Incentive dollars for this Hope Point Towers Proposal which hasn't yet offered up a market study proving viability (something they presumably are working on). If the developer puts these towers up, can't populate them, and goes bankrupt, who pays for care and maintenance of the buildings? With the Superman building, we have somebody that has already made an investment in our community… a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. That said, I am undecided on tax incentives here too, pending market viability.
He has a 47 story condo building under construction in Toronto.
Well, yes- in partnership with a number of other parties. It's about the only thing of merit on his portfolio, and he can't claim all of the credit for it. It shouldn't instill much confidence in his ability to get this off the ground in Providence. There's a big difference between attracting partners to team up on a big project in one of the hottest development markets in North America, and going it alone on an even bigger project in Providence- a city that's well behind the curve on the current development boom in North America. Even if he's not planning on going it alone and he hopes to attract investors, Tornoto is a much, much, much easier sell than Providence.
I will second the disagreement with your notion that Worcester has a superior skyline. I do think that the Superman Building is the defining anchor of the Providence skyline, and without that anchor its appeal drops sharply. But I am not convinced that filling the skyline with new towers will fundamentally improve the quality of life for the residents of our city. I am not sure the things that make Providence great demand that it have a skyline that wows. I am open to the proposal, but cautious, and I think Providence residents and business owners ought to have a voice.
This.
For starters, while the appeal of a skyline is highly subjective, Worcester does not have a better one than Providence. In New England, you could argue that Boston and Hartford do, but that's about it. Even Springfield has a prettier skyline.
Second of all, it doesn't really matter. Someone else brought up some of the European heavyweights. You don't go to Paris for La Defense or to London for Canary Wharf. Even Boston is considered one of the premier cities in the U.S., but not because it has the best skyline (Atlanta, Cleveland, Houston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and even Oklahoma City have taller buildings). What matters is at the street level, on the pedestrian scale. Historic, wall to wall pedestrian scale architecture is definitely a player in making a city great. But it doesn't necessarily have to be all historic in order to make a city great. Tokyo is one of the world's great cities and it's nearly devoid of historic architecture.
Providence has excellent density and good bones. The visual appearance of towers has a negligible impact on whether or not Providence is a "great city." Providence is already a great city because of its pedestrian scale, density, history, architecture, and institutions- not because of the number/height of its skyscrapers. A project like the one proposed benefits Providence mostly in the addition of housing units and the increase in population density close to the urban core. More residents downtown means more foot traffic and a higher demand for amenities and attractions in downtown Providence. The impact on the skyline matters only to those viewing the city from a distance. It'll be neat to be able to point this out while heading West on the Braga Bridge in Fall River (you can clearly see downtown Providence from there already), but it's certainly not going to make Providence a better place just because it's tall.
I remember when the malls and retailers first opened on Sunday, it was
the early 1990s or very late 1980s, not sure exactly.
No. My mom worked at Sears and I clearly remember the end of the blue laws in the mid to late 70s. I started college in Boston in 81 and they still didn't have Sunday retail at that time in Boston but I'm absolutely positive that RI did, well before the 90s.
No. My mom worked at Sears and I clearly remember the end of the blue laws in the mid to late 70s. I started college in Boston in 81 and they still didn't have Sunday retail at that time in Boston but I'm absolutely positive that RI did, well before the 90s.
No you're not positive. I said late 80s or early 90s.
Some stores were always open, like bakeries, but they closed around 12-1.
The malls and normal retail were not open in 1981.
I didn't drive until the mid-80s, and the malls were not open then.
If I can remember driving around empty parking lots on Sundays and
smoking reefer in them it had to be late 80s at the earliest.
For starters, while the appeal of a skyline is highly subjective, Worcester does not have a better one than Providence. In New England, you could argue that Boston and Hartford do, but that's about it. Even Springfield has a prettier skyline.
Worcester's skyline is far more expansive with multiple high rises over a much larger area, traveling down I-290 they are quite visible for several miles. Providence's skyline is poor, with a tiny downtown, with a small cluster of buildings consisting of the archaic superman building, one financial plaza, 50 Kennedy plaza, the Textron building, and a few newer buildings such as the Omni Hotel, the Westin residences, and the new Blue Cross building, all of which are located within a block of each other. Granted, the beauty of a skyline is in the eye of the beholder. But, the proposal for towers 50+ stories would be a bit much, perhaps 20 would be perfect. Even better, to move the proposal to Allen's Avenue if possible, and remove the blight from what could be impressive water front property
Worcester's skyline is far more expansive with multiple high rises over a much larger area, traveling down I-290 they are quite visible for several miles. Providence's skyline is poor, with a tiny downtown, with a small cluster of buildings consisting of the archaic superman building, one financial plaza, 50 Kennedy plaza, the Textron building, and a few newer buildings such as the Omni Hotel, the Westin residences, and the new Blue Cross building, all of which are located within a block of each other. Granted, the beauty of a skyline is in the eye of the beholder. But, the proposal for towers 50+ stories would be a bit much, perhaps 20 would be perfect. Even better, to move the proposal to Allen's Avenue if possible, and remove the blight from what could be impressive water front property
In the early '80's there was a lawsuit when the "Amica" building on So. Main St. was being built. (Hemenway's Restaurant on the 1st floor; don't know what they renamed the bldg. after that or today).
In addition to a height restriction the reason, the reason there is is a large 'jog' or a 'chunk' out of that building was to not block the views from Benefit St. to downtown Prov. or the views from Prov. toward the upper East Side. There may be a story in the ProJo archives about it at the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
