A proposal to dramatically change the Providence skyline (2015, neighborhood)
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.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,793 posts, read 2,696,474 times
Reputation: 1609
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Stodginess leads to regression.
While I think this contains a kernel of truth, I don't think it means we need necessarily sacrifice our principles for the sake of dynamism.
For a long time Boston was considered stodgy, and grew slowly, in contradistinction with New York City. But Boston may well have been a more livable city when it was stodgier, before all the growth of the last couple of decades.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ormari
While I think this contains a kernel of truth, I don't think it means we need necessarily sacrifice our principles for the sake of dynamism.
For a long time Boston was considered stodgy, and grew slowly, in contradistinction with New York City. But Boston may well have been a more livable city when it was stodgier, before all the growth of the last couple of decades.
Well, I live in Boston now (well, Somerville), and am condo hunting in Providence. And Boston is much better to live in now than it was when I was growing up in it. Pretty much everything is better now, except for the price tag. Some would say the arts too, but I'm not sure I agree with that.
Well, I live in Boston now (well, Somerville), and am condo hunting in Providence. And Boston is much better to live in now than it was when I was growing up in it. Pretty much everything is better now, except for the price tag. Some would say the arts too, but I'm not asure I agree with that.
I grew up in the city of Boston (well, into my teens). Some parts have improved, but the rest has NOT gotten better. Not for people who already had jobs and everything they need. Places like Roslindale, WR, HP, Ashmont Hill...back in the 80s and into the 90s they were full of familes and fine places to live. Some have been taken over by DINKs and other transient people, others have suffered from ghetto drift, which much of Providence has already seen (more of the latter though). I know this is OT, but I thought I would address that.
Easy for them to say. Why not dare to have empty skyscrapers standing out of place on the waterfront as a monument to bad judgement?
PS to Ormari- Why bother with height limits when variances are handed out? If these buildings can be filled with paying tenants and are 8-10 stories tall tops, they would not be bad in my opinion.
The article pointed out historically how big some of the buildings have been even here in Providence.
Same goes for the Smith Tower in Seattle and the 1st National Bank Tower in Portland, Oregon.
Hell even the Empire State Building and the Rockefeller Center were both duds due to their economic timing...but all worked out. Downtown Houston, Austin and Dallas had "see throughs" in the 1980's because of speculative building (it is a lot like the old cake walk game). Some people lost their shirts...but the buildings are all full now and helped to attract out of state businesses to move in, because of incentives and large floor plans were available.
I don't think these towers will fly as is (they suck architecturally and are a little too tall...I'd go with a 40 something, 25 floor and 18 floor towers). They are speculative yes, and first designs are normally mere placement visuals.
I firmly believe though that the Superman Building represents a lot of the old thinking in Providence........
But that simply isn't the way development works, nor is it the way negotiation works. Nationwide, developers propose projects that require variances to local zoning ordinances to be granted, be it new construction or additions/renovations. Why should the I-195 land be different in this regard? You expect the commission not to at least entertain a proposal of this size? Can you imagine the backlash if they didn't at least study the issue?
This proposal is not like the hated PawSox --> ProvSox ballpark proposal; there are quite a few more supporters. For instance, the Projo editorial page. This is particularly amusing:
I think we should be picky, but we must also have an open mind to at least consider things that don't fit in with our present vision of the place. I don't think we want to have building like the atrocious Boston Seaport District, for instance. But we have to accept that with development comes change.
I have my concerns, but this isn't kicking Pawtucket in the teeth and handing over $125M plus parkland over to a AAA baseball team that wants to sell expensive hotdogs and beer. It deserves a hearing.
Picky? If Brown Univ, Johnson & Wales or one of the other schools wanted to take the land and have it become tax free like their other properties, people wouldn't complain. The Residences at the Westin building is 31 stories, maybe I missed something, but I don't remember anyone complaining about it when it was proposed. Amazingly, some of those condos were listed at 2.3M. If the towers are built, each apartment sold on all those floors would contribute to the tax base. Some people seem to believe, there is going to be this wonderful alternative, I think not...
Picky? If Brown Univ, Johnson & Wales or one of the other schools wanted to take the land and have it become tax free like their other properties, people wouldn't complain. The Residences at the Westin building is 31 stories, maybe I missed something, but I don't remember anyone complaining about it when it was proposed. Amazingly, some of those condos were listed at 2.3M. If the towers are built, each apartment sold on all those floors would contribute to the tax base. Some people seem to believe, there is going to be this wonderful alternative, I think not...
did they say condos or apartments? The city is lacking in full sized apartments, not mini apts, as too many condos have been built. Many want to live in high rises and not own their units. The proposed structures are definitely too high, but it is time to build something taller than the INB building as it has defined the skyline for almost 90 years. Both Hospital Trust and Amica underbuilt at the time their buildings were built downtown to allow the INB to stand as the tallest in Providence.
Probably a mixture of condos and apartments, according to the article.
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.
