Jump to content

PROPOSED: Conley Wharf

ArtInRuins

Recommended Posts

mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

another EDC website update:

"stage" went from "design" to "design & construction"

"description" went from:

"Condos, Hotel, Retail &artist studio space, RIPTA Ferry and American Cruise Line"

to:

"Condos, Hotel, Home of RIPTA Ferry and American Cruise Line, Retail, Festivals, 920 car parking garage. Artist studio with live/work space & restaurant (completed)"

thats a pretty big garage - but great for the Ferry and the 50 & 100 passenger cruise ships that originate in Providence...

http://www.americancruiselines.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jencoleslaw Town

jencoleslaw

Posted
Posted

another EDC website update:

"stage" went from "design" to "design & construction"

"description" went from:

"Condos, Hotel, Retail &artist studio space, RIPTA Ferry and American Cruise Line"

to:

"Condos, Hotel, Home of RIPTA Ferry and American Cruise Line, Retail, Festivals, 920 car parking garage. Artist studio with live/work space & restaurant (completed)"

thats a pretty big garage - but great for the Ferry and the 50 & 100 passenger cruise ships that originate in Providence...

http://www.americancruiselines.com

i'm curious how it remains "hotel and condos" when the waterfront is not zoned for residential or hotel useage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jencoleslaw Town

jencoleslaw

Posted
Posted

there already was a rather interesting attempt to magically spotzone this area when it came up for the artists live/work space. I don't have an issue with residential along the water, providing that at no time do we ever restrict the public's access to its most important natural resource--the water--by violating the public trust doctrine. That's what i am really afeard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

Gai'ls Landing seafood restaurant is supposed to open in spring 06' , any clue if this is on track. Just curious because this thread s still labeled as proposed..

any new word on this? the website says summer 2007 for the restaurant. i'm curious because my fiancee saw it somewhere and wants to do our rehearsal dinner there now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

PROJO: "Clamping down on waterfront debris"

http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content...U0.330e633.html

BTW, here is this year's America Cruise Lines schedule for cruises embarking from Providence! This year's schedule is pretty robust and will surely bring people to RI to take these cruises...

http://199.237.204.14/store.php?crn=231

itinerary (not that I can afford it):

http://199.237.204.14/store.php?crn=230

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

oh my... something tells me there's something a little bit off with this guy. he doesn't get his way so he starts attacking everyone else... after he admits that he didn't get proper permits for the first phase of his project, which is already complete. if he doesn't care about the bureaucracy, why is he even bothering trynig to work within it since he was already defiant before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

well he should follow the rules.. hes wrong on that part. But what does everyone here on UP think as far as what should be done with the waterfront?

Is it a gold mine or should we let the industrial sector dominate it?

the industry down there is very much necessary for providence and the entire state of RI (and even some of CT and MA). we can't just toss it aside because people want views of the water. i don't think it's as much of a gold mine as some others would like to think. aside from needing to remove the industry, the entire area would need to be cleaned up before anyone would consider spending a lot of money on a waterfront condo there.

the industry not only provides the area with what we need (fuel oil is a big one), it also provides a lot of jobs that would just disappear if it were forced out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

and why cant they co-exist with new development?

i don't know... but i don't think any of the industry, which was there first and which that land is zoned for, should be displaced for anything. conley doesn't help his case by saying the crap he said in that article. if he wants his project to succeed, he'll have to learn to (1) work within the confines of the law (which he admitted to ignoring and i think he should face fines and heavier scrutiny for ignoring it) and (2) co-exist with the industry and work with them rather than against them to help make the waterfront more attractive to potential residents and tourists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mij Whistle-Stop

Mij

Posted
Posted

and why cant they co-exist with new development?

Not Possable. I would play my cards a little closer to the vest if I were Conley. A ton of money is being put into the water front. His tatics are old school and for lack of a better term tired and worn out. His approach is to bully out his neighbors. What he really needs to do is work with the previous owners and the DEM to settle his own problems. Being an old crony of Buddy, I wouldn't be surprised if Buddy used the soapbox to help his old friend. I want the water front reclaimed, but i don't like the tough guy tactic.

I'm pretty sure that the amount of jobs lost would become inconsequential. The amount of jobs created would dwarf the present number. Cleaning up the water front would provide an enormous return on investment as well.

I just wish it was another developer, and not a Buddy crony.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted

i don't know... but i don't think any of the industry, which was there first and which that land is zoned for, should be displaced for anything. conley doesn't help his case by saying the crap he said in that article. if he wants his project to succeed, he'll have to learn to (1) work within the confines of the law (which he admitted to ignoring and i think he should face fines and heavier scrutiny for ignoring it) and (2) co-exist with the industry and work with them rather than against them to help make the waterfront more attractive to potential residents and tourists.

I agree, but isn't Conley's property mostly vacant? What industry is he looking to displace?

He mentions Boston and Baltimore in the article. Both cities have active industry as well as residential development along their waterfronts. The same thing could work in Providence. Both sides in this argument seem to feel that the waterfront needs to be entirely devoted to one use or the other, which is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
misterchlo Unincorporated Area

misterchlo

Posted
Posted

I agree, but isn't Conley's property mostly vacant? What industry is he looking to displace?

He mentions Boston and Baltimore in the article. Both cities have active industry as well as residential development along their waterfronts. The same thing could work in Providence. Both sides in this argument seem to feel that the waterfront needs to be entirely devoted to one use or the other, which is absurd.

i totally agree. there should definitely be both. the port should even be built up to allow more business. i think optimally, the residential/marina/recreational features would be located from the hurrican barrier southward up to a certain point (maybe to the existing Conley bldg). and the industrial and port stuff further south along allens avenue, out of the eyeshot of visitors arriving on the Carnival Cruise ships coming in their Providence Port of Call :)

i'm a believer that cities need the ugly stuff for economical reasons. but i'm also a believer in trying your best to tuck it away in less prominent areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

the "reclaimed" waterfront is slowly trickling to his property (think dynamo house, the relocated 195 land, etc.) with the exception of the electric plant still in use. I think his land should be the sotuhern tip of the "reclaimed" portion on the west bank.

The stuff south of this is way too important and difficult to move, erase, get rid of and/or relocate. The port and it's activities are vital and the ifrastructure for all of it is already in place. I like his plan and think that it could co-exist. Its close to the hospitals and (hopefully) a future mulit-modal transportation node that has been talked about under the new 195 bridges.

If anything, perhaps the amount of residential is questionable. A mid-priced hotel and commercial space here would be fine.

I also wonder if this has more to do with the female body observatories than the noisy boat-yards and port per se. In any event this is an ugly situation that needs to be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mij Whistle-Stop

Mij

Posted
Posted

From what I understand, Patrick and Buddy are not cronies, far from.

I respectfully disagree. Patrick Conley is a civic bully. He has great intentions, just no room for opinions that aren't his own. He supported Buddy during both of his stays in city hall. If the 3 cities plan had went forward he would have made bank. Not to say he wont still, but the battle becomes a little tougher for him now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.