917 replies to this topic

[Frankie811]

jencoleslaw, on Dec 13 2006, 09:50 PM, said:

why are they the only ones? What about the owner of Trinity BrewHouse? The Owners of Bravo? The PRovidence Hilton?

To be honest with you, I also felt that the only people who had a legitimate complaint against the Waterplace condo project were the good folks over at the Center Place Apts ( 50 Park Row West ) . They were the people who were/are directly impacted by this project. Let's hear what they have to say. The hell with the College Hill people.

[f1rehead]

runawayjim, on Dec 14 2006, 12:31 AM, said:

i never said that people who don't live in the neighborhood shouldn't weigh in or care or state their opinions. this is one city. we each have a voice. what i said was that an organization that advocates for a very specific area (such as WBNA or SNA or CHNA) shouldn't be used to speak for or against citywide issues. if members of those various groups want to join forces and form a citywide organization so be it. if individual members want to speak as residents of the city, go for it, please do. but don't speak as a member of the organization that represents people who may or may not agree with the consensus of the group when it comes to issues outside of that specific area.

That's ludicrous. A group of people can advocate for whatever they want, just like individuals can. If the WBNA decides that this is something they should be concerned about, then so be it. It's not up to you.

Also, the original article said: "Some members of the public, particularly from the West Broadway Neighborhood Association, have expressed concern about the project’s size and the vagueness of the plans, and a desire to incorporate the old façade." It doesn't say that the WBNA has expressed concern, but that members of the WBNA have. You don't know if the WBNA has taken a position on this project and neither do I. You assumed that the WBNA has decided that this is bad project and there's no evidence to justify that conclusion.

My bet is that Kari was there because she cares about preservation generally, and the geniuses at ProJo automatically assumed that she was there representing the WBNA. Personally, I'd also like to see them keep the old facade. It's not going to happen, but that doesn't mean she or I can't ask anyway.

Jerry02908 -- do you have any proof to back up any of your allegations?

[runawayjim]

f1rehead, on Dec 14 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

That's ludicrous. A group of people can advocate for whatever they want, just like individuals can. If the WBNA decides that this is something they should be concerned about, then so be it. It's not up to you.

Also, the original article said: "Some members of the public, particularly from the West Broadway Neighborhood Association, have expressed concern about the project’s size and the vagueness of the plans, and a desire to incorporate the old façade." It doesn't say that the WBNA has expressed concern, but that members of the WBNA have. You don't know if the WBNA has taken a position on this project and neither do I. You assumed that the WBNA has decided that this is bad project and there's no evidence to justify that conclusion.

My bet is that Kari was there because she cares about preservation generally, and the geniuses at ProJo automatically assumed that she was there representing the WBNA. Personally, I'd also like to see them keep the old facade. It's not going to happen, but that doesn't mean she or I can't ask anyway.

Jerry02908 -- do you have any proof to back up any of your allegations?

i wasn't at either of the meetings, but if someone stands up and says "i'm _____ from the __ neighborhood association", i'd say it's fair to assume they're speaking on behalf of the organization and not as an individual resident.

i think they should have tried to save some of the facade, but i can also see that it's very impractical because of the design of the current building and the fact that very little of the old facade could even be used.

[jencoleslaw]

runawayjim, on Dec 14 2006, 10:05 AM, said:

i think they should have tried to save some of the facade, but i can also see that it's very impractical because of the design of the current building and the fact that very little of the old facade could even be used.

dude, if they wanted to incorporate the facade, the new design would reflect that. they simply don't give a fig. Designers, and architects are pretty darn creative! The developer isn't interested in doing anything creative, he just wants to make money, which is why we need people to stand up and say "save the cod-damn facade!" or similar words to that effect.

[runawayjim]

jencoleslaw, on Dec 14 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

dude, if they wanted to incorporate the facade, the new design would reflect that. they simply don't give a fig. Designers, and architects are pretty darn creative! The developer isn't interested in doing anything creative, he just wants to make money, which is why we need people to stand up and say "save the cod-damn facade!" or similar words to that effect.

the back of the building can't be used at all because it's in the middle of the lot. the empire facade is entirely overhead doors, not really useful for the building they want. the fountain street side is half overhead doors, also not useable. that leaves the other half of the fountain street facade and the green street facade, which isn't all that attractive. why would they want to use that?

does anyone have pics of the new renders?

[Jerry2]

f1rehead, on Dec 14 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

Jerry02908 -- do you have any proof to back up any of your allegations?

As far as what? Their mission on their website says it all. While some of their causes are noble and I'm sure they do a lot of great things, "guiding development" is not their expertise. If you are talking about specifics.....The Armory is still vacant. The Louttit is not developed. Both have had opportunities over the years to be re-developed. As a matter of fact, developing the Armory was their biggest vision when they were founded. It's funny how it has morphed into some of their ideals now.They recently vehemently opposed a tattoo parlor on Westminster. They were out in full force against the project on West Fountain...a beautiful project that would have made a grand entryway into the community. I haven't heard @ that project in awhile. Using the same logic that they are so "concerned" about the city, how many members of the WBNA live outside of the fuzzy "West Broadway" borders? Seing that it is a "city" organization, could one from Smith Hill become a member? Look, I'm sure that there are a whole bunch of people on here that are members. Fine....but I think somebody needs to sit down at the next meeting and question the direction of this association.

[basachs]

runawayjim, on Dec 14 2006, 10:20 AM, said:

the back of the building can't be used at all because it's in the middle of the lot. the empire facade is entirely overhead doors, not really useful for the building they want. the fountain street side is half overhead doors, also not useable. that leaves the other half of the fountain street facade and the green street facade, which isn't all that attractive. why would they want to use that?

does anyone have pics of the new renders?

I keep hearing about overhead doors and how they are not usable. The way I see it, if you remove overhead doors, you are left with a big open square. A blank canvas that lets you be creative. Why can this not be used? If you filled these spaces with glass and doors, that lets a lot of light into the lobby and is attractive on a streetscape level.

Personally I think the facade should be saved in some regard. I'd also like to see a big building be put here, so I am not against height. But since I live off of Broadway and am a member of the WBNA, perhaps I have no say on this.

[ruchele]

Quote

But since I live off of Broadway and am a member of the WBNA, perhaps I have no say on this.

I still think the issue is getting confused. The point is not if members of the WBNA or if people living in different parts of the city should have say in what goes on in downtown. Of course they should. The issue is about if the WBNA, as an organization, is adhering to its mission by taking official stances on stuff that doesn't obviously directly impact quality of life in the West Broadway neighborhood. Like I said before, if there is an argument for how this DOES impact W.B., then they should make that argument.

Edited by ruchele, 14 December 2006 - 10:27 AM.

[runawayjim]

basachs, on Dec 14 2006, 11:10 AM, said:

I keep hearing about overhead doors and how they are not usable. The way I see it, if you remove overhead doors, you are left with a big open square. A blank canvas that lets you be creative. Why can this not be used? If you filled these spaces with glass and doors, that lets a lot of light into the lobby and is attractive on a streetscape level.

Personally I think the facade should be saved in some regard. I'd also like to see a big building be put here, so I am not against height. But since I live off of Broadway and am a member of the WBNA, perhaps I have no say on this.

have you seen the building? it's really not all that attractive even if it is "historic". yes, the overhead doors can be made into something "creative", but to be honest, after what i've heard of the description of the new design... the facade and overhead doors won't really fit in.

i don't care if members of the WBNA or any other neighborhood group want to weigh in. their opinions are no less valid. if people would actually read my posts, you'd see what i've been trying to say.

[ruchele]

Jerry02908, on Dec 14 2006, 12:50 AM, said:

The real problem with neighborhood groups is their socialist attitudes toward anything that they don't fully understand.

This is an interesting use of "socialist" that I'm not sure has anything to do with the definition of the term. . .
(but that's a topic that is obviously not for discussion on this forum.)

[basachs]

runawayjim, on Dec 14 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

have you seen the building? it's really not all that attractive even if it is "historic". yes, the overhead doors can be made into something "creative", but to be honest, after what i've heard of the description of the new design... the facade and overhead doors won't really fit in.

i don't care if members of the WBNA or any other neighborhood group want to weigh in. their opinions are no less valid. if people would actually read my posts, you'd see what i've been trying to say.

I can assure you that I read your posts, and I see the building all the time. Just last night I was at trinity and afterward spent some time walking around the building. I only had two pints so my eyesight was probably still good.

I think this issue here is creativity. The building is not attractive now, I totally agree. By retaining certain elements and being creative, it can be attractive while still retaining a sense of what it was. The fact that the facade and overhead doors do not fit into the TPG design...well that should not deter anyone from advocating for a new design that DOES incorporate the current building if that is what they want.

I'd like to see some effort to do that, or some documentation of the effort spent to determine that it was not a feasible idea. Primarily though, Id like to see some development there and a nice tall building that interacts with the street makes me a happy person.

If you can incorporate the current building, thats great. If not, then be prepared to be more specific about why it cannot be. Simply having overhead doors and needing to fill in that space should be seen as a design challenge, not a deterrent.

+

[mental757]

my last post was more a poke at the constant NIMBYism that RI is FAMOUS for. I think we all should have a say (and have the right to say it by law) about projects that effect the region. I understand that people who physically live closer to projects might be impacted more, but that shouldn't overrule the overall positives a project will bring to greater populus. I mean anyone with an alphabet soup association name squeeks about things they (often) aren't even educated about and it creates mass hysteria - it's just sickening to me, thats all.

"That building will be too tall and it will hurt the fabric of my neighborhood."

"The runway doesn't need to be any longer."

"We don't need a container port at Quonset."

Where the hell do these people want ANY economic development to come from? They are the same ones to complain about rising taxes, declining services, and the lack of political interest - gee, I wonder why??

new roads, jobs, and a larger tax base has to come from somewhere...

Lets just scare away all of the investment for crying out loud!

Edited by mental757, 14 December 2006 - 12:01 PM.

[runawayjim]

basachs, on Dec 14 2006, 12:38 PM, said:

I can assure you that I read your posts, and I see the building all the time. Just last night I was at trinity and afterward spent some time walking around the building. I only had two pints so my eyesight was probably still good.

I think this issue here is creativity. The building is not attractive now, I totally agree. By retaining certain elements and being creative, it can be attractive while still retaining a sense of what it was. The fact that the facade and overhead doors do not fit into the TPG design...well that should not deter anyone from advocating for a new design that DOES incorporate the current building if that is what they want.

I'd like to see some effort to do that, or some documentation of the effort spent to determine that it was not a feasible idea. Primarily though, Id like to see some development there and a nice tall building that interacts with the street makes me a happy person.

If you can incorporate the current building, thats great. If not, then be prepared to be more specific about why it cannot be. Simply having overhead doors and needing to fill in that space should be seen as a design challenge, not a deterrent.

+

i am obviously not a developer or part of TPG, so i don't know why they decided not to save part of the facade. my only guess and assumption is that it would not be feasible for what they are looking to do with the space. the building as it stands, does not interact well with the street to begin with. that's one of the issues. i can only imagine that the overhead doors are also part of the issue. i can't really say much more than that without seeing a render of the building.

creativity is necessary, but how far should they go and how much money should they spend on trying to save a relatively ugly building? i think that's really what it comes down to. i don't know anything about the history of the building or how old it is, but i won't miss it if it's gone, especially if whatever is built in its place is a much better building for the area.

[CtownMikey]

Jerry02908, on Dec 13 2006, 02:28 PM, said:

The point of coining it that term is to differentiate it from O'ville. Olneyville equates to ghetto while Valley is hip.

lol sorry that reminds me of the Valley area in CLUELESS

[DaveRPI]

jencoleslaw, on Dec 14 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

dude, if they wanted to incorporate the facade, the new design would reflect that. they simply don't give a fig. Designers, and architects are pretty darn creative! The developer isn't interested in doing anything creative, he just wants to make money, which is why we need people to stand up and say "save the cod-damn facade!" or similar words to that effect.

i just wanted to insert my 2 cents, i dont even know if they are talking about, private property etc, think the topic was still on the police station???, but...

im painting a family member's 100 year old back yard carraige house/barn soon... do you have an opinion on that too? lol

not talking about the actual station, but private property? ... this part of the country is so ridiculous
we have a civic bldg in the train station that looks like a vanilla wafer cookie and people care about some old facade on somone's private property???? how about the mall with all the "false" windows... its a travesty

the police station was ugly, dirty, and it reminds everyone of how bad downtown was at one point... tear it down, its not the parthenon

Edited by DaveRPI, 14 December 2006 - 03:41 PM.

[Frankie811]

An article I posted in the Manhatten forum.

Donald Does Downtown

Preservationists concerned about impact of 45-foot Trump Hotel / Condo in SoHo Donald Trump is moving downtown. During the May 5 finale of his television show The Apprentice, the developer announced that winner Sean Yazbeck of Britain would work with him on a 45-story hotel condominium at 246 Spring Street, at the corner of Varick Street, tentatively called the Trump SoHo.

Neighbors and community groups in SoHo, Greenwich Village, and TriBeCa are up in arms over the project and have been fighting it for months. The problem for the project’s detractors, however, is that the project is perfectly legal and can be built as-of-right in Hudson Square, the light industrial neighborhood surrounding the Holland Tunnel.


http://www.archpaper...s/2006_1211.htm

[RLucas83]

Looks like they have a new rendering thumbnail on the TPG page, you cant click on it but it looks to be like 17 ish stories and also doesnt look like the blue glass that it was http://www.procgroup...d-projects.html

[dgreco]

RLucas83, on Dec 15 2006, 09:14 AM, said:

Looks like they have a new rendering thumbnail on the TPG page, you cant click on it but it looks to be like 17 ish stories and also doesnt look like the blue glass that it was http://www.procgroup...d-projects.html

It looks a lot different and I think I like it better.

[JJK5]

RLucas83, on Dec 15 2006, 09:14 AM, said:

Looks like they have a new rendering thumbnail on the TPG page, you cant click on it but it looks to be like 17 ish stories and also doesnt look like the blue glass that it was http://www.procgroup...d-projects.html

What's weird is that the image shown has been stretched. If you go to the actual thumbnail it looks like this: (right off their site)


http://www.procgroup.com/featured-projects...roadway-th2.jpg

Edited by JJK5, 15 December 2006 - 08:43 AM.

[RLucas83]

JJK5, on Dec 15 2006, 11:35 AM, said:

What's weird is that the image shown has been stretched. If you go to the actual thumbnail it looks like this: (right off their site)


http://www.procgroup.com/featured-projects...roadway-th2.jpg

Yuck!... i like the stretched one alot better! It'd be the shape of the coutyard marriot plus like 4 floors