Archived

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

Frankie811

Growth & Future of Providence

Recommended Posts


a restored infrastructure

Yes, don't forget that while we build million dollar condos, the bones of this city are very brittle.

First and foremost, Providence is an urban environment.

In short, it will be a city, but it will be a great city.

Does this mean that the Providence of tomorrow will look different than it does today? Yes. Change is the lifeblood of thriving cities.

Our ambitions for our future should not be smaller than the achievements of our past.

If I didn't have a boyfriend already, I'd soooo being hanging out at City Hall trying to get hizhonahs attention. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I didn't have a boyfriend already, I'd soooo being hanging out at City Hall trying to get hizhonahs attention.  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hahahahahha Well, I think you'd have to beat off Mario Valario first B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahahahha  Well, I think you'd have to beat off Mario Valario first  B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And Miss Kitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Fox Point folks are being told where to go..

Density is good.. Providence is, right now, like a suburb as far as traffic and things go..

The city can take on 100k more people as is and handle it easily..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just someone worried about tall buildings. The city isnt suggesting density because they are broke, they are broke because we aren't dense enough! Chicken or egg, it doesn't matter. If they had more public input, I am afraid that height restrictions would get worse, not more relaxed. Too many groups dont yet see the big picture.

I think a corrider of tall buildings along 95 wouldn't be a wall to the West side, but would actually shift the focus of downtwon towards the highway, making it seem as if the highway is "sunk" in between all these buildings (like Philly)... then we could do more with the highway and maybe create a park above part of it, reconnect Westminister Street, and Atwells and downtown and most of the West Side could maintain their present character, while still gaining density in Capital Center and along the highway. At this point, I say the people with the big picture ideas should just run with it. For once, they have the right idea, and public opinion might dumb it down too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Fox Point folks are being told where to go..

Density is good.. Providence is, right now, like a suburb as far as traffic and things go..

The city can take on 100k more people as is and handle it easily..

Density is good, mostly. But note that if we took on 100K more people, we'd be the second-densest city in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Density is good, mostly. But note that if we took on 100K more people, we'd be the second-densest city in the US.

Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Density is good, mostly. But note that if we took on 100K more people, we'd be the second-densest city in the US.

Sounds great to me:

- Most people per square mile contributing taxes to the same infrastructure...

- More of a catalyst for light rail, commuter rail, bus systems, etc...

- More of a market to draw media, events, conventions, etc...

- More leverage in local, regional, and national politics...

- More support for fledgling downtown and neighborhood retail areas...

- Garris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was taking issue with the notion that Providence is in any sense "suburban," already being the 7th-densest city in the country.

I think density is good, but we shouldn't pretend that the transition from here to a city of 100k more people would be easy, smooth, and without any complication or some legitimate concerns.

Our infrastructure once supported 75k more people than it does today, but much of it in conditions none of us would find terribly pleasant.

To increase the pop by 100k would absolutely require substantial changes to many longstanding neighborhoods. That doesn't mean those changes would be bad, but they'd need to be subject to reasoned and robust conversation.

(As opposed to the tenor that defined the zoning process, or the hastily drafted TIF, which we were asked to pass literally 3 weeks after it was first presented to us in the December.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not likely to see the entire state increase in population but 100k anytime soon, so any talk about the city doing so is a little fantasical anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the chances that providence will cross the 200k mark anytime "soon"?

Not being extremely learned on this topic, my guess would be not anytime soon... Most Northeastern cities, even "hot" ones like Boston, are loosing population (mostly due to demographic trends... More single or couple households, less big families) and even ones like us that are gaining are doing so by, what, about 5-10 thousand per decade? My guess would be, at current growth patterns, crossing 200K around 2050...

- Garris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe the lastest census estimates, Providence shrank by about 1000 between July '04 and July '05. A lot of people question the validity of those estimates though, and they proved to be very wrong in advance of the 2000 census in some urban areas. If we grew at 1000 per year it would be 27 years before we crossed 200k.

Of course if gas hits $5 a gallon any time soon, the entire demographic urban/rural/suburban make up of this country could change radically. I say could, but I kind of doubt, maybe $10 a gallon is the sweet spot, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being extremely learned on this topic, my guess would be not anytime soon... Most Northeastern cities, even "hot" ones like Boston, are loosing population (mostly due to demographic trends... More single or couple households, less big families) and even ones like us that are gaining are doing so by, what, about 5-10 thousand per decade? My guess would be, at current growth patterns, crossing 200K around 2050...

- Garris

is boston really that "hot"? most people i know who live there are moving farther out of the city because of the outrageous rents that don't really match up with the salaries there. i know people by davis square who are paying a ton of money to live there, and therefore, live extremely modestly. and another friend who lived in cambridge just moved to arlington because it's a whole lot cheaper.

providence is hardly unaffordable, even with our lower salaries.

If you believe the lastest census estimates, Providence shrank by about 1000 between July '04 and July '05. A lot of people question the validity of those estimates though, and they proved to be very wrong in advance of the 2000 census in some urban areas. If we grew at 1000 per year it would be 27 years before we ecrossed 200k.

Of course if gas hits $5 a gallon any time soon, the entire demographic urban/rural/suburban make up of this country could change radically. I say could, but I kind of doubt, maybe $10 a gallon is the sweet spot, who knows.

those census estimates were before the hurricanes drove gas prices close to (or in some cases over) $3/gal. i don't know... i'd say that more people would want to drive less if gas went up to $5/gal. the problem is, the people who are able to easily pack up and move (singles and couples without children) are already more likely to live in an urban environment and those who don't already are much less likely... but i'd be it'd be good motivation for the cities to make themselves more attractive to people, either that or we'll see a large investment in public transit, neither of which is a bad thing...

according to the census data taht i'm looking at, we've grown at about 1000 per year between 2000 and 2004. their estimates for 2004 said 178k, making it only 22 years to exceed 200k. their estimates also put 2003-2004 at a gain of about 1,500. i know it should all be taken with a grain of salt... i guess we'll see what happens in 2010 (hopefully i'll still be living in the city, as long as the wife-to-be doesn't make me leave).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---stretch of reality for curiosity---

Lets say within the next 15-20 years, a major increase in providence and rhode island's tax base occurs. Let's quadruple the current amount.

That Biotech (forgets the name) company chooses R.I. over N.C., M.A., AND N.Y., bringing along more biotech and high paying jobs... and eventually attracting other biotech businesses here to build manufacturing or research and development plants here. Citizens builds a new HQ and acquires some more banks to be in the top 5 in the country, Fideltiy decides to keep some employees in Providence, T.F.G. and Dunk renovations will be complete and will both attract more business, A few Boston based companies choose to come to Providence, Huge projects such as ALCO and Providence Piers are completed bringing in new residents and jobs......

So my main question is, is it possible to add enough tax dollars to be able to give R.I. some tax relief that can compete with any part of the country as far as cost of living and doing business is concerned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will always be very difficult for liberal-oriented states (heavy on social services and wealth redistribution) to compete on a tax-basis with conservative or libertarian states, who, for better or worse, do not provide much assistance to their lower income residents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will always be very difficult for liberal-oriented states (heavy on social services and wealth redistribution) to compete on a tax-bases with conservative or libertarian states, who, for better or worse, do not provide much assistance to their lower income residents.

Ari, I see your point and I do think there is quite a bit of validity to it, but let me as you this...Do you think states that do not provide as much, if any, assistance to lower income residents are planting the seeds of trouble for tomorrow? By those that have not aiding those that don't isn't that helping to foster a second class? Name one society that has been extremely successful with such sharp divisions. It breads discontent that over time boils over the pot. Sure, liberal-oriented states may have more difficulty attracting certain types of business, but wouldn't you agree that the trade off is a nicer society in which to live? For me, the economic trade off is worth it. Besides, I spend a lot of time down south in what is considered an economic "hotbed" and I can tell you I'm not impressed. The quality of life in a shared society is not there. In my life, I really need that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't remember a time in my RI life that there was tax relief. Is it possible that bringing busineses and jobs and wages to a state doesn't actually translate into lower taxes, despite the promises? When was the last time that a town actually lowered taxes (not including when the revaluations came out and folks paid a lower mill rate on much much much higher assessed property)?

I really am curious if this actually happens in other communities across the state, or even country and how it is accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.