PROPOSED: Hotel Sierra (aka Sierra Suites)

[JimmyGreaves]

where will this meeting be?

Department of Planning and Development

400 Westminster Street - 4th Floor Conference Room

Downtown between Aborn and Empire

[davemello]

From the Action Alerts thread:

The Downcity District Design Review Board hearing:

When: Monday, January 09, 2006 at 04:30 PM

Location: Planning Department {sodEmoji.{sodEmoji.|}} 4th Floor Conference Room {sodEmoji.{sodEmoji.|}} 400 Westminster Street

Agenda: 132-134 Fountain Street - Commercial Buildings (Public Hearing) Sierra Suites. Proposal to demolish two existing commercial buildings and to construct a new 11- story hotel building with a parking facility. The applicant is requesting approval of the proposed demolition and Waivers of DRC Regulations for building setback and frontage related to the new construction.

where will this meeting be?

[foxpointer]

It is #5 on the agenda so if you get there at 5:30 will likely not miss it.

[ArtInRuins]

5) DRC Application No. 05.21: 149-157 Washington Street and 132-134 Fountain Street - Commercial Buildings (Public Hearing)

Proposal to demolish two existing commercial buildings and to construct a new 11- story hotel building with a parking facility. The applicant is requesting approval of the proposed demolition and Waivers of DRC Regulations for building setback and frontage related to the new construction.

Providence Down City District Design Review

January 09, 2006 04:30 PM

Department of Planning and Development, 400 Westminster Street, 4th Floor Conference Room, Providence, RI 02903

[spanishboy]

i went to the meeting and i hope they revise their renderings.

[AriPVD]

Can someone give a recap? I wasn't able to go to the meeting because we were having a big project meeting ourselves. I did run into one of the developers afterwards and he said he was "riddled with bullet holes."

[eltron]

Can someone give a recap? I wasn't able to go to the meeting because we were having a big project meeting ourselves. I did run into one of the developers afterwards and he said he was "riddled with bullet holes."

Well, that sure sounds good!

I second the request for a recap...I couldn't make it either on account of a conflicting meeting...

[Garris]

I was there and spoke, so hopefully I was a small bullet hole myself... A quick recap. First, a disclaimer: this was the first such meeting I've attended, so I don't know what's normative for such proceedings, so take my opinions with a grain of salt...

First, the developers/owners/companies had a lot of folks there, a lot of suits. A representative of the company first did a standard recap of how high quality their brand is and how good a fit it would be for the city. Interestingly, despite this being a design meeting, he never mentioned the design at all.

A particular member of the design commission (I'm sorry, I don't know their names) who made several outstanding comments throughout the evening (many prefaced or finished by the statement, "This is a city...") brought up both how dead their hotel streetfront would be from a pedestrian standpoint, and why a historically significant building should pay the price with demolition. Much time (in fact, much of the remaining time) would be taken up by a debate over the significance of the "New Japan" building.

Some impressions as the meeting went on:

- The hotel reps, property owner, and representing lawyer struck me as surprisingly aggressive. There was no brown nosing going on here. No hand holding about "doing the best we can together" here. They were in full attack mode defending their plans quite nastily and pointedly...

- The design board, while restrained obviously by their position and limitations, brought up appropriate reservations and went down a laundry list of problems they felt the design has legally and practically. One member said something to the effect that they were a long way from being ready to approve it and wanted some new designs and new data on the viability or lack thereof of the New Japan building.

- The "garage" entrace in the hotel design is NOT a garage entrace! It's actually the auto entry to the ground level MAIN ENTRANCE to the hotel, which itself is on the side street there and runs to Fountain! So that means that door in the render onto Washington isn't even the main entry and exit point of the hotel, but kind of a side door. I had trouble following the argument, but there are zoning issues as to where they are and are not allowed to put a main entrance and I'm not sure how this was left (anyone else there follow this?).

- The architect gave by far and away the weakest performance of anyone in the room in the evening. If I were the developer and listened to his talk, I would be thinking, "F***, this guy really just killed us." He wanly, disinterestedly, and flatly ignorantly talked for about 3 minutes only about how "there's a certain degree of repetition necessary" for a corporate hotel structure and how he felt "the materials are appropriate" after every single person in the room had blasted the materials. He finished with a weak, "this is just a first design" comment that kind of trailed off into space, and that was all.

- Jack Gold of the PPS (which I just recently joined, as an aside) gave a nice, eloquent, and learned read of a letter from the PPS that he presented to the board. I'll ask him if I can reproduce it here. He made several outstanding points, including the idea presented here by Cotuit and others that the main tower should be set back from the streetscape (which, if I understood correctly, is what zoning there calls for), or preferably from the historic current building itself. The only negative in his presentation, I thought, was that that the PPS came out against the scale and height of the building, which I did not think is inappropriate as long as it's set back (and I said as much).

- AS220 was represented by three people speaking, and quite well at that. Only the last speaker went on a somewhat self-interested tangent that had nothing to do with design but the point was made.

That's the long and short of it and is most of what I remember. Much of the discussion were legalistic, historical, and economical arguments about the New Japan Building, I'd say 75-80% of debate, and less about the design itself. A Projo reporter was there too so we'll read more about this tomorrow. It looks like the debate will continue next month. Hopefully we'll have more people there from UP next time!

- Garris

[xine]

Can someone give a recap? I wasn't able to go to the meeting because we were having a big project meeting ourselves. I did run into one of the developers afterwards and he said he was "riddled with bullet holes."

I was there for the public comment section- I thought they got off kind of easy, but certainly not scot free. I'll do my best to recall a few of the points while it's still fresh in my mind:

Comments from the audience:

- Jack Gold from PPS presented a good letter stating PPS was officially against the project for variety of reasons, including demolition of contributing structures.

- The "New Japan" building proposed for demolition could and should be saved

- The new design will negatively impact the streetlife and vitality of the block.

- The design is generic, and could be in any city.

- This particular version of knee-jerk Postmodernism is hollow and generally the design is terrible

- Generall, it is "lazy architecture"

There was some additional discussion about driveways that I didn't follow, and review of some minor zoning issues.

The developer maintains that the "New Japan" building is structurally unsound, and would be cost prohibitive to save. They emphasized that they are planning to save the building next door, which was the source of some discussion.

The staff comments reflect much of the above, especially the sub-par aesthetics. A subcommittee will meet with the architect to review design suggestions and the project will be on the agenda for Feb. 13.

I did feel like the architect did get the message that the design needed to improve, but also that there is not much standing in the way of the project proceeding more or less in its current form (size, program, demolition, etc), apart from some facade modifications.

[CtownMikey]

no matter how agressive these developers are... the final decision is with the design review committee here in PVD right?

[JimmyGreaves]

Can someone give a recap? I wasn't able to go to the meeting because we were having a big project meeting ourselves. I did run into one of the developers afterwards and he said he was "riddled with bullet holes."

I got there around 5:40 and, unfortunately, was unable to comment, but I was impressed by the turnout and the united front of justified opposition to the design and the negative effect it would have on the overall dynamic of the streetscape. The only thing I would add is that the developers and the architect seemed very incredulous about how the downcity zoning regs might impact their design (unless variances are granted), particularly the setback regs. They did not think it would be possible for the Fountain Street side of the building to abut the property line, which is required by the zoning. One of the city planner's respone was essentially (paraphrasing), "this is a city, and if you want to build here, you must be flexible in your design". Anyway, it was nice to see the level of participation of the various people who turned out to comment and I'm glad that there seems to be a lot of pushback from some people on the Planning Commission.

[Frankie811]

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20...10.da8d266.html

[Frankie811]

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20...10.da8d266.html

http://www.sierrasuites.com/

[gregw]

I wasn't able to be there, so thanks Garris and xine for the recap.

All I can say is that the developer and the lawyers come off as complete a**holes and that the arguments they use to justify tearning down the New Japan bldg are about as hackneyed as you can get. It cannot be saved, how many times have I heard that BS. That's just what the developer of Eagle Sq said when he wanted to raze everything. And lo and behold, when he had to rehab some of the bldgs to get the project to pass muster, it was done, so he was just lying.

As for the lawyer's idiotic quip that the Declaration of Independance wasn't signed there, if that's the standard then nothing in Providence warrants preservation.

[Cotuit]

I was sick and wasn't able to attend. Thanks to all who attended for the updates.

[gregw]

no matter how agressive these developers are... the final decision is with the design review committee here in PVD right?

They can either keep going through the Design Committee until it's approved with substantial changes or (I think) they can appeal to the Zoning Board.

[Baines]

no matter how agressive these developers are... the final decision is with the design review committee here in PVD right?

To me, the objection is the design's suburban look. A suburban looking 11 floor building in a historic downcity seems a worse scenario than an older 5 floor one.

My input would be that the developer go back to the table and design a building that has:

1) a smaller footprint

2) 4-6 floors taller (due to #1) creating a 15-17 floor building

3) facade for the first 4 floors that totally fits with the current streetscape

[Garris]

To me, the objection is the design's suburban look. A suburban looking 11 floor building in a historic downcity seems a worse scenario than an older 5 floor one.

My input would be that the developer go back to the table and design a building that has:

1) a smaller footprint

2) 4-6 floors taller (due to #1) creating a 15-17 floor building

3) facade for the first 4 floors that totally fits with the current streetscape

This is essentially everything I said during the public feedback session at the meeting...

- Garris

[Baines]

This is essentially everything I said during the public feedback session at the meeting...

- Garris

I certainly knew you would...again, the city faces an opportunity to move development towards a vision that will all piece together nicely in 3 years - a taller, larger, more vibrant, but still a classly historic Downcity.

[Mij]

I certainly knew you would...again, the city faces an opportunity to move development towards a vision that will all piece together nicely in 3 years - a taller, larger, more vibrant, but still a classly historic Downcity.

A couple of points and a couple of questions.

1) I

[gregw]

Mij:

I don't think anyone would be complaining if the New Japan bldg were coming down for something like 110 Westminster. The bank bldg that was torn down for that was a better piece of architecture and not even PPS came to its defense.

The problem on Washington St is that a piece of complete architecural sh*t is being proposed to replace an ok building that--despite being rather plain--is inoffensive and is one of the bright spots on Washington St because of its retail tenants. Plus the Sierra Suites might just ruin the urban fabric of Washington St by being the largest building on the street and setting the tone.

It's the worst proposal I've seen in Providence since the mill wars of 2000-2001 and similarly reflects the growing suburbanization of the city's urban fabric.

A sad note from the ProJo:

http://www.projo.com/metro/content/projo_2...10.db42fdb.html

I predict a strip mall or drive through DD on Eddy in the not too distant future.

[Mij]

Mij:

I don't think anyone would be complaining if the New Japan bldg were coming down for something like 110 Westminster. The bank bldg that was torn down for that was a better piece of architecture and not even PPS came to its defense.

The problem on Washington St is that a piece of complete architecural sh*t is being proposed to replace an ok building that--despite being rather plain--is inoffensive and is one of the bright spots on Washington St because of its retail tenants. Plus the Sierra Suites might just ruin the urban fabric of Washington St by being the largest building on the street and setting the tone.

It's the worst proposal I've seen in Providence since the mill wars of 2000-2001 and similarly reflects the growing suburbanization of the city's urban fabric.

A sad note from the ProJo:

http://www.projo.com/metro/content/projo_2...10.db42fdb.html

I predict a strip mall or drive through DD on Eddy in the not too distant future.

First off - I dont like the proposal. I want something that will challenge the norm but not destroy it. I want connection. I want the tourist from the convention center to see something special when they look out the large windows of the convention center. I want that visitor to embrace providence not be turned off by it. The building that houses New Japan and The Cuban Revolution work in different parts of the city. but it dosent fiy any longer here. There is so much change going on in this area that we as residents and critics have to be able to embrace the rise of this area as the new area to be. I am so happy that a group like the Providence Preservation society will come to the aid of any historical building. But again as residents we have to be able to determine what should stay and should go. We cannot be the east side or fox point resident who oppose any change. Becouse i post dosent mean that i think we should just allow any old building to be built in our back yard. As a life long resident (all 24 years) i see this area as a consetent failure. What kind of city donw town area cant sustain a McDonalds in their entertainment and sports district. The area needs new life. I just hope that the next set of renderings help provide that.

[AriPVD]

Just as a note, that McDonald's closed because of constant violence and loitering and general public nuisance, not because it was not sustainable.

[Garris]

A couple of points and a couple of questions.

1) I

[Cotuit]

This recessed driveway and their contention of not wanting to impede traffic on Washington makes me think even more that this hotel should be primarily oriented toward Fountain Street (with a pedestrian entrance and retail on Washington).

As part of the redesign of Emmett and LaSalle Squares, Fountain Street is supposed to be narrowed and straightened (this would allow for a larger footprint for the Fogarty Building site, though that seems unneeded now that TPG has said they are keeping the Fogarty Building). A redesigned Fountain Street should allow the hotel to have plenty of room for a driveway in the same style as the Biltmore's on Dorrance Street.