29 replies to this topic

[Frankie811]

Commission rejects Bellevue Gardens project. Developer Aram Garabedian says he will probably shelve redevelopment plans after the Historic District Commission bounces his proposal. [The Providence Journal]

Wednesday, November 16, 2005
BY RICHARD SALIT
Journal Staff Writer

NEWPORT -- The Historic District Commission last night unanimously shot down a $40- to $60-million plan to transform the 1950s-era Bellevue Gardens strip mall into a midrise complex with condominiums on the top three floors, retail space on the ground floor and some parking underground.

Edited by Cotuit, 03 January 2007 - 05:21 PM.

[pdxstreetcar]

sounded like a good proposal and almost anything would be better than the huge parking lot there now

[ruchele]

pdxstreetcar, on Dec 1 2005, 11:35 PM, said:

sounded like a good proposal and almost anything would be better than the huge parking lot there now

Yeah, except that this proposal would have kept the parking lot.  Much of the opposition to the proposal was that it was more or less on the footprint of the current building.

Edited by ruchele, 01 December 2005 - 11:26 PM.

[Carter711]

Commission likes revision to condo, retail center

NEWPORT -- Although it didn't take a vote, the city's Historic District Commission last night seemed welcoming of developer Aram Garabedian's plan to convert the one-story Bellevue Gardens Shopping Center into a mid-rise luxury-condominium complex with stores and a restaurant on the ground floor.

The sprawling shopping center, located across from the Tennis Hall of Fame, is generally seen as the bane of beautiful Bellevue Avenue.

http://www.projo.com...e8.32ffbdb.html

Edited by Carter711, 01 October 2006 - 06:39 PM.

[runawayjim]

Carter711, on Oct 1 2006, 08:32 PM, said:

Commission likes revision to condo, retail center

NEWPORT -- Although it didn't take a vote, the city's Historic District Commission last night seemed welcoming of developer Aram Garabedian's plan to convert the one-story Bellevue Gardens Shopping Center into a mid-rise luxury-condominium complex with stores and a restaurant on the ground floor.

The sprawling shopping center, located across from the Tennis Hall of Fame, is generally seen as the bane of beautiful Bellevue Avenue.

http://www.projo.com...e8.32ffbdb.html

that's a great idea.  that shopping center is hideous.

[Carter711]

Although this sounds like a huge improvement, the developer says he can't move the building out to Bellevue Ave., b/c he can't break the CVS lease.  So the sprawling surface parking lot fronting Bellevue will remain, although the developer promises to 'beautify' it, and reduce the parking spaces down to 288.

[Gusterfell]

Great news, though I still see no reason this couldn't be built up to Bellevue Ave.  Let CVS front an interior lot with signage on the street, if they don't want to move into new construction.  It would look so much better than a parking lot fronting the avenue, no matter how well landscaped.

There are some renderings of the (pre-modification) proposal in the windows of one of the vacant storefronts there.  I've been meaning to take some pics.

Edited by Gusterfell, 01 October 2006 - 06:42 PM.

[runawayjim]

Carter711, on Oct 1 2006, 08:38 PM, said:

Although this sounds like a huge improvement, the developer says he can't move the building out to Bellevue Ave., b/c he can't break the CVS lease.  So the sprawling surface parking lot fronting Bellevue will remain, although the developer promises to 'beautify' it, and reduce the parking spaces down to 288.

i figured... that sucks though.  at least it will add some density, even with the parking lot.

[quente]

Gusterfell, on Oct 1 2006, 07:40 PM, said:

There are some renderings of the (pre-modification) proposal in the windows of one of the vacant storefronts there.  I've been meaning to take some pics.

Please do; I'm curious to see what's being proposed. Regardless, it will be a huge improvement over what's there now.

[Gusterfell]

I believe these are the latest renderings.  The ones that I mentioned above are those dated Sept. 9 in that pdf, as well as the watercolor at the end.

[Lone Ranger]

I'll step out on a limb here: definitely an improvement over what's there now.  ;-)

I like what they're doing for King St, the little street that parallels Bellevue at the rear of the complex.  That street was kind of a shame before.  Half colonial, half commercial ugly.  Huge improvement there.  It'll feel like a real street again.

I also like the revisions the developers have made to their own proposal.  Less clutter in the appearance.

All in all, I like it.  The parking lot in front is a pity, but the building is where it is where it is.  The trees should help somewhat.  The more the merrier.

[dgreco]

Lone Ranger, on Oct 4 2006, 06:26 PM, said:

I'll step out on a limb here: definitely an improvement over what's there now.  ;-)

I like what they're doing for King St, the little street that parallels Bellevue at the rear of the complex.  That street was kind of a shame before.  Half colonial, half commercial ugly.  Huge improvement there.  It'll feel like a real street again.

I also like the revisions the developers have made to their own proposal.  Less clutter in the appearance.

All in all, I like it.  The parking lot in front is a pity, but the building is where it is where it is.  The trees should help somewhat.  The more the merrier.

They have done a really good job, and I do think they do a great job with the parking lot, for the way it is.  But for the developers to make the revisions on there own was nice as well.

[runawayjim]

MUCH better than what's currently there...

[dgreco]

runawayjim, on Oct 4 2006, 10:40 PM, said:

MUCH better than what's currently there...

I feel like you don't like what they are going to do, but I feel like the front parking lot isn't even that bad when you "fancy" it up, I think it is nice.

[runawayjim]

dgreco, on Oct 5 2006, 09:35 AM, said:

I feel like you don't like what they are going to do, but I feel like the front parking lot isn't even that bad when you "fancy" it up, I think it is nice.

i like what they're going to do.  i don't like that there's a huge parking lot fronting such a major street that should be more walkable than it is.  while there is a shopping plaza across the street with a parking lot, that parking lot is longer and goes farther back with part of that shopping plaza built to the sidewalk.  the one that this project is for is completely fronted by the huge parking lot.  at the very least, that parking lot should've been built behind the building.

[dgreco]

runawayjim, on Oct 5 2006, 09:41 AM, said:

i like what they're going to do.  i don't like that there's a huge parking lot fronting such a major street that should be more walkable than it is.  while there is a shopping plaza across the street with a parking lot, that parking lot is longer and goes farther back with part of that shopping plaza built to the sidewalk.  the one that this project is for is completely fronted by the huge parking lot.  at the very least, that parking lot should've been built behind the building.

I don't know the money details, if they have the money to displace the building and put a new one towards the street than yes, but I figured that money was an issue like all things and for that being said it is hard to complain about it.

[Lone Ranger]

K, so now we've got a thread for Bellevue Gardens.  And let me start by asking a question that's been bugging me: I understand the limitations of renovating an existing structure, but why can't the developer build a small structure for retail close to the street to tighten up the feel of the area?  On the corner of Bellevue and Williams, say ...

[MapmanNo1]

Lone Ranger, on Jan 4 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

K, so now we've got a thread for Bellevue Gardens.  And let me start by asking a question that's been bugging me: I understand the limitations of renovating an existing structure, but why can't the developer build a small structure for retail close to the street to tighten up the feel of the area?  On the corner of Bellevue and Williams, say ...

This is an old debate.

In their presentation to the Planning Board, Garabedian and Newport Collaborative explained their reasoning for rebuilding on the existing footprint instead of constructing new street-side buildings.

Basically, it went somewhat like this: any building that is constructed directly across from the Casino, the Audrain Building, and Travers Block would immediately be compared to these architectural gems. Not to mention the fact that this particular stretch of Bellevue is narrower than most; new buildings along Bellevue would block the fantastic views we now have of the Casino, Audrain, and Travers.

The effort was instead to focus on selling the parking lot as a kind of square for Bellevue Avenue, to continue to showcase the architecture across the street while increasing the vegetation in the lot. I understand their reasoning behind this.

I know they had an explanation for not building along William Street...but I still think it would be a good idea to complete that currently mediocre streetscape.

[Gusterfell]

MapmanNo1, on Jan 4 2007, 09:47 PM, said:

Basically, it went somewhat like this: any building that is constructed directly across from the Casino, the Audrain Building, and Travers Block would immediately be compared to these architectural gems. Not to mention the fact that this particular stretch of Bellevue is narrower than most; new buildings along Bellevue would block the fantastic views we now have of the Casino, Audrain, and Travers.

The effort was instead to focus on selling the parking lot as a kind of square for Bellevue Avenue, to continue to showcase the architecture across the street while increasing the vegetation in the lot. I understand their reasoning behind this.

I'm not sure I completely buy that.  First, why shouldn't the new building be compared to the gems across the street?  Anything built in such a visible location should be of the best quality possible.  That the new building isn't a century old doesn't exempt it from its obligation to maintain the architectural quality of Bellevue Ave.  

Second, the views of the Casino Block that the Bellevue Garden property currently allows aren't historic.  Access to that vantage point wasn't available to the public until after the Stone Villa estate was demolished in 1957.  The buildings were designed primarily to be viewed and appreciated from the street, not from a distance.

Finally, the view itself isn't that great.  Looking at these 19th century masterpieces from across a suburban parking lot transforms their context to the point that it detracts from the architecture itself.  Dressing up the parking lot with foliage and other parklike elements will be an improvement, but a parking lot is still a parking lot, and it will be pretty hard to change that appearance, especially from within the property itself.

Edited by Gusterfell, 04 January 2007 - 10:24 PM.

[Lone Ranger]

It doesn't have to be Williams, either.  I'd happy with something on the other end of the parking lot, Jones Ave, which -- well, what the hell, is there even anything on Jones Ave?  

Now that I think about it, I imagine Jones is only there as a service road for that strip mall.  For the trucks.  Pity.  If not for that, it could probably be condemned and the developer could use that land too, say for something like the SmithBarney building in the plaza across the street.

Something, anything, to create a better sense of space in that area.