Archived

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

Cotuit

PROPOSED: 190 Dyer Street

Recommended Posts

v21-200DyerStreet001.jpg

200 Dyer Street

Project Summary

Location: 198-200 Dyer Street, Providence, RI

Type: New Construction & Redevelopment

Use: Office / Retail

Size: 276,400 sf

CONNECTING THE CITY TO THE RIVER

The development proposal for 198-200 Dyer Street responds to the City

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I have to say, I really hate that 200 Dyer render (and I also have trouble picturing exactly where it is).  It looks like G-Tech South...  It also, like G-Tech, already looks 15 years old...  There are lots of buildings in Miami and Ft Lauderdale that already look like that.  On the face of things, it doesn't seem too urban friendly to me...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not liking the river facade on that 200 Dyer rendering, but the other facade I don't mind so much (even if it's been done to death in Florida  ;) ). I'm having a bit of trouble placing it exactly myself. It seems to be where the Ship Street Landing would be, in which case it's not being built. Googling 200 Dyer puts it here.

If it's a real proposal then it can't be on actual 195 land, no one has rights to that yet. Since the land was aquired with federal highway funds there is a specific auction process that needs to be followed to unload it, and I don't think we'll be seeing any of those auctions until 2010.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DyerStreet002.jpg

Perhaps Dyer is running across the front of the building and Dorrance is heading towards Kennedy Plaza on the right?

No, that doesn't make sense, that has to be Eddy Street heading toward Davol Square on the right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regarding Dyer St, I think your second observation is correct.  I think that's looking down Dyer towards Davol Square (the folks who own the gym there must salivate at the thought of more development!).  Who owns those parking lots on the satellite shot on Dyer St?  That's where the building will likely go...  Outdated design or not, that building would be a revelation for that part of the city.  There currently is not a thing on any of that land...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New owner, new design (Also known as 190 Dyer). Originally planned to start construction in July 06 postponed until sometime in 07. New design has a group of low scale buildings along the water with a tall building along Dyer St. The lower buildings are residential/hotel in the 3 to 8 story range (height varies in the last design I saw), the taller building (200 plus) is office space. Parking is internal. Developer has lots of experience in Boston and is a Providence resident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the taller building (200 plus) is office space.

Offices! That's refreshing.

Not that I don't like condos and hotels but someone's gotta earn a paycheck in this town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New owner, new design (Also known as 190 Dyer). Originally planned to start construction in July 06 postponed until sometime in 07. New design has a group of low scale buildings along the water with a tall building along Dyer St. The lower buildings are residential/hotel in the 3 to 8 story range (height varies in the last design I saw), the taller building (200 plus) is office space. Parking is internal. Developer has lots of experience in Boston and is a Providence resident.

I certainly hope the city strongly encourages a smalller footprint to add height to the building...220-250' perhaps?

Pulling the height down from the financial district to Dyer is key to adding much needed depth to the skyline.

Good news if it stays on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly hope the city strongly encourages a smalller footprint to add height to the building...220-250' perhaps?

Pulling the height down from the financial district to Dyer is key to adding much needed depth to the skyline.

Good news if it stays on track.

I agree with you that we need depth to the skyline, but Providence won't fill in their vacant any time soon if all they build are skyscrapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that we need depth to the skyline, but Providence won't fill in their vacant any time soon if all they build are skyscrapers.

Vacant what? We hardly have any vacant office space right now. We need more! You can't get any Class A space available in Providence. We have been unable to move one of our divisions here because of the lack of space. It would be nice if we built a office tower or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vacant what? We hardly have any vacant office space right now. We need more! You can't get any Class A space available in Providence. We have been unable to move one of our divisions here because of the lack of space. It would be nice if we built a office tower or two.

I think the point he was making is that you won't fill all of those empty/surface parking lots if you just build skyscrapers since there is not so much demand that you can fill every parcel with a 200'+ building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the developer will have a better time with NIMBYs (specifically the CHNA) if they stay under 200 feet. I say go for 199 feet. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point he was making is that you won't fill all of those empty/surface parking lots if you just build skyscrapers since there is not so much demand that you can fill every parcel with a 200'+ building.

That's true. I just wasn't sure what was being referred to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just walking around down here and I'm wondering if Thom can tell us where exactly this is proposed to go, and if anything is supposed to come down to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just walking around down here and I'm wondering if Thom can tell us where exactly this is proposed to go, and if anything is supposed to come down to make it happen.

The building with the city Inspections and Standards Department, I think.

its one case where I'm all for the dynamite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The building with the city Inspections and Standards Department, I think.

its one case where I'm all for the dynamite!

I'm hoping it's not looking to knock down the brick buildings to the north, as those are some of the last remnants of the river's days as a working port. They're contempraries of the Steeple Street block if I'm not mistaken, maybe not quite as old as the Steeple Street block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping it's not looking to knock down the brick buildings to the north, as those are some of the last remnants of the river's days as a working port. They're contempraries of the Steeple Street block if I'm not mistaken, maybe not quite as old as the Steeple Street block.

Hope I'm not geeking out to much here but I dug up historical info on those three bldgs.

The building to the north with the slate hip roof is from the 1880s and was originally a warehouse and the one to south is from the 1920s and was built as an electric substation (which it still is.) They both appear to be still owned by National Grid.

The Steeple St. bldg is much older, from c. 1790, and was originally Congdon and Carpenter, a manufacturer of nails and other hardware. It's the oldest industrial bldg in the city and after Slater Mill the oldest in the state according to the AIA Guide to Prov. Architecture.

I recall that when Baccari was looking to develop this parcel, which I think Fallon later acquired, it was where the low-slung INS(?) building is--a bit to the south of the brick structures Cotuit is referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping it's not looking to knock down the brick buildings to the north, as those are some of the last remnants of the river's days as a working port. They're contempraries of the Steeple Street block if I'm not mistaken, maybe not quite as old as the Steeple Street block.

Only the 190 Dyer building. We won't let the brick buildings come down. Fought National Grid over the past few years to have the buildings stabilized. Now to get them to sell the front building for reuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that we need depth to the skyline, but Providence won't fill in their vacant any time soon if all they build are skyscrapers.

You are correct. What I was envisioning is a smaller footprint and thus a taller building....not more actual square foot space.

I think as a general strategy this approach (smaller footprints and taller buildings) should apply from Exchange Street on the north to the Service Roads on the west to Memorial on the east, and down to Dyer (current Route 195) on the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any new renders becoming available soon for this?

I might be able to get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(east of dorrance...)

The "east of Dorrance" was Ari mentioning a hotel conversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just checking - these things can seem like moving targets at times...

where on the map you made in the 'rumor' thread would the rumor be in relation to this one???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where on the map you made in the 'rumor' thread would the rumor be in relation to this one???

I don't know, I didn't float the rumor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I just have to admit that I don't know enough about the individual buildings 'east of dorrance' to guess which one would be a likely candidate for hotel conversion. It certainly sounds like the one with new permit could be it though. Is that building suitable for use as a hotel in your opinion??

When are we going to get a Hyatt anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.