Newport Redevelopment Plan

[Lone Ranger]

A surface lot bites the dust, indeed! I was walking by there today, and asked a couple guys behind the fence what was going in.

[MapmanNo1]

Two news items from the Island today...

More pedestrian carnage on West Main Road [ProJo NewsBlog]

Rendering from Newport Collaborative of Newport Heights Phase IV

Newport Heights Phase IV: New builder, new architect [Daily News]

- Valley Affordable Housing of Cumberland replaces Trinity Financial of Boston

- Newport Collaborative replaces ICON Architecture of Boston

- Phase IV, between Beacon Court and Hillside Avenue, will feature 37 rental and 7 condo/duplex units

- Phase V (final phase) developer and architect still undecided

[Lone Ranger]

Have a look at this.

[Lone Ranger]

Did ya see this article in today's East Bay section of the ProJo?

Bristol isn

[MapmanNo1]

Shifting gears a bit, to a ProJo article from before Christmas...

IYRS Opens Interim Training Program in Bristol [ProJo]

IYRS, home of worthy projects that never end (Coronet and Aquidneck Mill, to be precise), is looking into leasing space from Bristol Marine at their complex at 281 Franklin Street. The school is interested in expanding its "up-bay" presence, centered on Bristol's strong maritime industry. More positive signs for a high-growth niche industry...

[ruchele]

Now, if you want to talk about inappropriate development, let's talk about those horrible subsidized thingies on Pond.

[MapmanNo1]

there are legitimate concerns about zoning & quality of constuction (not to mention general ugliness) of a lot of the new buildings in the neighborhood, but that Mr. Bestoso is just misled in thinking historic district designation is the way to get these problems addressed.

[Lone Ranger]

Yeah, they are prety ugly, but they have been there for decades at this point.

[ruchele]

I'm not saying that the subsidized housing itself is bad: you're assuming the worst of me. But the style of development that those units exemplify is all wrong. It's undeniably suburban in the middle of a neighborhood that, as you say, is extremely dense. Everything between Broadway and Warner is dense. Everything between Warner and Van Zandt is dense. All the way from Farewell up to Malbone, it's dense. It's a continuous, completely urban neighborhood.

Except then you've got these stupid standalone things with big green lawns (never used by any of the residents) sitting in the middle of that neighborhood.

So tear down the offensive units and replace them with more appropriate units that match the density of the neighborhood around them, that's all I'm saying.

It's not the biggest issue in the world, but it's a pet peeve of mine. I have the same gripe about the low-income housing on Farewell across from Mumford Manor. Coddington Apartments, is it? It makes no sense being what it is where it is.

And this is random, BTW, but that little cemetery next to Coddington Apts. is extremely interesting.

[ruchele]

Update: http://www.newportdailynews.com/articles/2.../news/news2.txt

Hey! I know this family! Small town.

[MapmanNo1]

I have a hard time imagining them as a priority.

Yes, that is a really interesting little graveyard.

[ruchele]

As for the Pond Avenue and Coddington Apartment units: sure, they aren't the nicest places and they do detract from the surrounding neighborhoods, but there are bigger fish to fry.

[gregw]

It looks like the house that's being built is not only moderately scaled but evocative of Newport's architectural history with its roofline, etc. I can't understand why anyone would object to this.

[Lone Ranger]

Hey, in a town with such severe space constraints, any wastage looks like a problem to me. Think about it this way: if (in the first place) the Coddington Apts. had been designed properly, then maybe the Pond units would never have been necessary. That's room for (guesstimate alert) maybe 15-20 more families on Pond Ave. in that dense, working-class neighborhood.

As a blue-collar fellow myself, I'm irked by that.

I say Newport's affordability problems are synonymous with its sprawl problems.

Sprawl comes in many forms, large & small. And really, while a wasteful development like RK Center is a thorn in my side, which is really more offensive, an RK Center in its autocentric North End or these inappropriately suburban housing units in their residential urban neighborhoods?

No, Mapman, you're not mistaken, there are several governors in there from the Colonial/Revolutionary period. But I didn't know William Ellery was in there too. Yikes.

[MapmanNo1]

if (in the first place) the Coddington Apts. had been designed properly, then maybe the Pond units would never have been necessary.

I say Newport's affordability problems are synonymous with its sprawl problems.

Sprawl comes in many forms, large & small. And really, while a wasteful development like RK Center is a thorn in my side, which is really more offensive, an RK Center in its autocentric North End or these inappropriately suburban housing units in their residential urban neighborhoods?

[ruchele]

Interesting statement re: sprawl-affordability relationship. But I have to disagree. . . Newport's affordability issue has much more to do with its status as an attractive resort destination than it does with sprawl. Even if you squeeze more units into the city, it is still an attractive destination for out-of-town buyers.

The Coddington Apartments are pretty dense; my guess is that they are as dense (if not more dense) than the surrounding neighborhood of single-family colonials, Victorians, and second-floor apartments. . .

While Pond Avenue is on the cusp on suburban, it's a stretch to even imagine Coddington Apartments as such. Poor design, sure, but not suburban. I say the bigger thorn is RK, by far. Autocentrism in a sea of autocentrism is a bigger problem than a barely suburban island in a sea of urbanity.

[Lone Ranger]

Interesting statement re: sprawl-affordability relationship. But I have to disagree. Phoenix is sprawl central, yet way more affordable than Newport. Newport Heights is at a lower density than many downtown neighborhoods, but through subsidy is more affordable. Newport's affordability issue has much more to do with its status as an attractive resort destination than it does with sprawl. Even if you squeeze more units into the city, it is still an attractive destination for out-of-town buyers.

[ruchele]

Of course most of Manhattan doesn't fit the textbook definition of affordable, but it's a fact that Manhattan is more affordable because of its density than it would otherwise be: imagine what prices there would be like if the density were more in line with American housing standards! Same with The Point: take away the density, and Washington St. becomes Indian Ave. Or Bellevue Ave.

Edit: and I don't for a minute believe that either of the apartment complexes in question is nearly as dense as its surrounding neighborhood.

[Lone Ranger]

I'm sorry, this argument just doesn't make sense. Manhattan is expensive because it is in high demand. It is in high demand because it has all the factors that make it Manhattan. If it were less dense, it wouldn't be Manhattan, so there's no way to know if it would be more affordable or not. I suspect that it might be more affordable, because it wouldn't have all the great stuff that comes with the hyper-density, so people wouln't be so hot to live there. It certainly is a heck of a lot LESS affordable than less-dense areas of the city- a small Manahttan apartment can easily be over a million, where you can get a brownstone for the same amount in Brooklyn.

[ruchele]

Yes of course it's still expensive, that's the point: Manhattan is the crossroads at the center of the densest, biggest urban metropolis in the Americas. The brownstone in Brooklyn doesn't have that attribute of central location. And yes, even with the density, Manhattan is still ridiculously expensive because its location makes it extremely desirable. But that cost is shared around by upping the density. Of course it would be cheaper to live in the sticks of Montana, but you don't get that great big downtown feel then, do you?

No offense, but I doubt a measly $2m is going to get you several acres and one of those mansions on Indian Ave. To be sure, I haven't checked lately. And I consider Indian Ave to be rural, yes. That was the point of the illustration.

Didn't one of those things sell last week? I could have sworn I read something about that. The Booth house? How much did that go for?

If that's the best we can do, it's the best we can do. That's the work of gentrification for you. But hey, you could practically fit a whole neighborhood in RK Center, and I don't hear anybody screaming about that monstrosity. I hear a lot of people complaining about the cost of housing in Newport, but people never connect the dots.

[MapmanNo1]

Again, we are comparing apples and oranges- tiny lots on the Point with huge properties on Indian Ave., the appeal of living in a dense downtown with the appeal of the country- we just can't compare "affordability" of the two or assume that density has anything to do with it.

Housing prices in Newport are not as high as they are just because there aren't enough houses. It's not just that "The total cost of living in Newport is $X billion, so the more people you split it between the cheaper it is per person." The issue is a lot more complicated than that.

[ruchele]

Which is why I'm staying out of this discussion. It's a mind-numbing argument over affordability when the true issues at stake aren't really even being considered.

Can we stop this nonsense?

[MapmanNo1]

Sure. What do you think the true issues at stake are?

[Lone Ranger]

No, obviously there are much larger factors in play. But my point is that we're not helping our probelms with these autocentric, suburban-style (yes even though they're dense) developments.

Gentrification is gonna happen, I'm sorry to say. It's gonna happen in Newport. It's gonna happen in Providence. I'm not going to spear out my own heart over it, it's a fact of life. But when we start compounding our problems with our own stupidity, that's when I get mad for the plight of the common man, that's all.

[ruchele]

Newport is expensive, in my view, primarily for the following reasons:

1) Appeal to out-of-town buyers as a resort area, bidding up sale values. Even in areas that are not desirable for out-of-towners, the bid-up in prices has a ripple effect as more locals are pushed into other areas of the island. This is also compounded by the drastic nationwide run-up in real estate prices over the past few years.

2) Shrinking population supporting the same infrastructure as before (like roads, Police/Fire, Rogers HS, etc.), resulting in higher tax rates.

This squeeze from both ends results in a continuation of the pattern, where school enrollment and the population as a whole keep decreasing. Ideally, the city would be positioned to take advantage of the extra tax income from empty-nesters, second-home owners, and - most importantly - the hospitality industry to support its biggest cost - the schools - but the shrinkage in population has outpaced this, the hotel and restaurant taxes aren't big enough for the city, and timeshares are taxed too low. So the ideal equation of tourism providing taxes to support the reduced number of schoolchildren didn't work out - kind of the way it won't work out with a casino. Because, unlike property taxes, most hospitality industry taxes go to the state. And although the state supports local school districts, it should be the primary funder, especially in a place as small as Rhode Island.

This isn't even mentioning the serious amounts of money the city will spend on roads (the recent bond may just be the beginning), sewer fixes (according to Waluk, a priority), and unfunded pension liabilities. So things will, unfortunately, get worse before they get better. The biggest of these costs is education, which is being passed down to homeowners and renters. The state needs to step up to the plate.

Density is nice, and it can have a very limited impact on affordability, but the real factors at play limiting affordability have much more to do with out-of-town appeal and stretched municipal budgets resulting in increased taxes.

EDIT: But then again, maybe it just made all of that up?