WANDERING: MetroLofts

[jencoleslaw]

Surface parking lots cut off the West Side far more than tall buildings.

agreed.

[jencoleslaw]

yea, you gotta watch out for those big bad scary tall bldgs... they will bully you into not going downcity! lol

you gotta be kidding me!?!? live and let live, make money and let make money

maybe it'll block your view of all those drivers going 50 in the high speed lane on 95, lol

to be profitable enough for investors, bldgs need to contain a certain number of units...

complaints about height only cut the yield to investors and they will take their money elsewhere.

it happens all the time... its not greed- its profit and companies dont exist without it, which means jobs dont exist without it, people dont buy things from other people when they have no job, so those businesses go out of business, etc etc, on and on, you see the cycle???

what would you rather have? a neighborhood full of grundgy auto scrap yards and unkempt and massive surface parking lots OR a building that would attract other investment to the neighborhood and connect it with downtown not just visually, but financially...

as long as it doesnt look like the dominica manor bldg, I'm all for it

I'd like a neighborhood that is vibrant and healthy, regardless of its size, actually. And, what makes a neighborhood healthy and vibrant is a plethora of uses, and incomes. I love the west fountain street area, a scant block or so away, auto shops, state battery, the decatur, etc. Of course, that's not where MetroLofts is going to go, but i think we all know that developments have octopus arms, and spread out into neighborhoods, and can affect them quite adversely vis a vis traffic, housing costs, etc.

Providence is a shiny jewel for magpie developers right now, and we should be using that (because it won't always be like this) to ensure that any development is the highest and best use (not just for developers but for the people who have already made the investment in the city), and that it doesn't run working class folks out of town. While i'm a big fan of increasing the tax base by having Retired empty nesters and the like around here with no kids and other "drags" on the infastructure, i don't believe that a healthy neighborhood is one where the poor folk come to town just to work for the rich folk.

your milage may vary.

[DaveRPI]

there is no chance of running working class folks out of town just yet, this isnt boston. orovidence has a loooong way to go on that front

if you already own your home and the housing costs went up, you would only stand to profit

poor folk working for the rich folk??? lol- poor folk work to make money so they CAN be the rich folk someday... not sure who you are trying to prosyletize on that one...

the fact of the matter is, neighborhood whining and power struggles over control of their developments will stymie all further developments in that area. i know this for a fact- working in this industry. developers want to get the bldg in the ground as fast as possible with as little resistance as possible and avoid all sorts of scrutiny that costs them and their investors money by the day to lawyers, designs, time value of money and costs ect etc, which in the end will cause them to leave or never take the RISK of building there again... lets not kid ourselves here, these are all investments and with that comes risk, just like when you bought your home over there. there were risks involved and you have to accept them as they come, good and bad

btw, i love traffic... even though no one likes sitting in it... it means commerce is in the air [along with co2, lol] and the commerce is a great thing for a CITY, if people want no traffic, they should move to foster or west greenwich, its impossible to live in a city and not expect the day to day life of living in an urban area, it comes with the territory

and the more traffic there is, the closer we are to light rail and i cant wait for the that woo hoo!

[gregw]

I think you're right that traffic (and hard to find parking) are actually positive indicators. It's not hard to find parking in downtown Woonsocket and that's not a good thing.

It's also true that there are many parts of Prov. that are a long way from being gentrified and some (Armory?) where some degree of gentrification is good because it creates a mixed-income area which can result in better police presence and better delivery of public services.

However, in my neighborhood, Summit, there has been a huge change in just the last 5 years. The neighborhood used to range from working class to upper middle class. It's getting to be more narrowly affluent. There's noticeably less ethnic and economic diversity and fewer and fewer kids attend the public schools. In this case, I don't see this change as healthy.

there is no chance of running working class folks out of town just yet, this isnt boston. orovidence has a loooong way to go on that front

if you already own your home and the housing costs went up, you would only stand to profit

poor folk working for the rich folk??? lol- poor folk work to make money so they CAN be the rich folk someday... not sure who you are trying to prosyletize on that one...

the fact of the matter is, neighborhood whining and power struggles over control of their developments will stymie all further developments in that area. i know this for a fact- working in this industry. developers want to get the bldg in the ground as fast as possible with as little resistance as possible and avoid all sorts of scrutiny that costs them and their investors money by the day to lawyers, designs, time value of money and costs ect etc, which in the end will cause them to leave or never take the RISK of building there again... lets not kid ourselves here, these are all investments and with that comes risk, just like when you bought your home over there. there were risks involved and you have to accept them as they come, good and bad

btw, i love traffic... even though no one likes sitting in it... it means commerce is in the air [along with co2, lol] and the commerce is a great thing for a CITY, if people want no traffic, they should move to foster or west greenwich, its impossible to live in a city and not expect the day to day life of living in an urban area, it comes with the territory

and the more traffic there is, the closer we are to light rail and i cant wait for the that woo hoo!

[millboy]

yea, you gotta watch out for those big bad scary tall bldgs... they will bully you into not going downcity! lol

you gotta be kidding me!?!? live and let live, make money and let make money

maybe it'll block your view of all those drivers going 50 in the high speed lane on 95, lol

to be profitable enough for investors, bldgs need to contain a certain number of units...

complaints about height only cut the yield to investors and they will take their money elsewhere.

it happens all the time... its not greed- its profit and companies dont exist without it, which means jobs dont exist without it, people dont buy things from other people when they have no job, so those businesses go out of business, etc etc, on and on, you see the cycle???

what would you rather have? a neighborhood full of grundgy auto scrap yards and unkempt and massive surface parking lots OR a building that would attract other investment to the neighborhood and connect it with downtown not just visually, but financially...

as long as it doesnt look like the dominica manor bldg, I'm all for it

One could argue both sides, for profit, and for scale. Surface parking lots suck, and blight a city's tax base. But throwing up 10 story monstrosities like Castle Bellasomething (especially on the highway, what will people think of Providence?!!) is not the answer either. Providence has to be careful here with all this building boom. Anyone remember all the hype over Brutalist bunkers being built everywhere in the 60's-70's. Where are they all now? They're fodder for demolition because they're "ugly" and don't contribute. Industrial park buildings must have looked pretty slick too when they were first built in the 80's (Thanks, Bob Venturi and Mike Graves). Now what do we think of them?

[runturtlerun]

The fact is that this area is zoned for 4 stories. Even with the proposed zoning changes, only 15 stories would be permitted along the service road and 6 stories, i believe, along Westminster. The proposed building is something like 210 feet high. There is no reason for the developer to build such a massive structure that is so out of line with the zoning and existing built context -- except for their own gross profit of course. The city should not be giving away density bonuses like this without exacting some sort of "price" from the developer -- such as providing affordable housing, sustainable/green building practices, or other.

[Cotuit]

The city should not be giving away density bonuses like this without exacting some sort of "price" from the developer -- such as providing affordable housing, sustainable/green building practices, or other.

If the City Council would pass the revised zoning ordinance the city would have the tools with which to extract trade-offs for height and density. As it stands, developers can continue to play the variance game, which results in things like Belmonte Castello.

[DaveRPI]

sounds like government sponsored extortion

who made the current zoning ordinances? and how old are they? i think they mostly are completely ridiculous

we're not talking thousands of feet in height here

i know that some make some practical sense, mostly for firefighters ladder/emergency repsonse capabilities, but 50 yards away are bldgs 8-12 stories, i would hardly say that there is nothing in the vicinity to compare...

the bldg on the corner of cahir and westminster

the travelers bldg

the dominica manor

regency plaza etc etc

it always makes me laugh that people cant handle a lil extra height

[glassandsteel]

I think as long as it's along the highway, it really isn't too tall for the neighborhood. You have to remember that the building across the street from this lot is like what, 11-stories? There are going to be a lot more buildings of this magnitude along the 95 gash. There's the Hilton Condos, whatever goes in the circular station lot, Hotel Napoli is right near the edge too if I remember correctly and that's nine stories. It'll will bring some of the height over the highway so from the highway the "city" isn't all on one side, and from the west there won't be a visible gap between them and downtown. I think it will add depth.

[runturtlerun]

FYI, this development is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board tonight at 6:30 p.m. City Hall, 5th Floor, Probate Court Room.

[jencoleslaw]

If the City Council would pass the revised zoning ordinance the city would have the tools with which to extract trade-offs for height and density. As it stands, developers can continue to play the variance game, which results in things like Belmonte Castello.

the comp plan is supposed to be updated before the zoning ordinance changed. That is what is holding this up.

[Cotuit]

FYI, this development is scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board tonight at 6:30 p.m. City Hall, 5th Floor, Probate Court Room.

Is this meeting posted online anywhere? I'm having trouble finding it.

[damus]

with all the talk about 95 creating a "barrier", what happened to the idea of decking over the highway and putting in parks? a dead idea?

[Cotuit]

with all the talk about 95 creating a "barrier", what happened to the idea of decking over the highway and putting in parks? a dead idea?

That was never a very feasible idea. It would cost far too much for the city to do it. And private industry won't likely take it on because of the cost as well. There's a lot of empty lots in Providence that don't require this kind of special engineering to develop.

[runturtlerun]

Is this meeting posted online anywhere? I'm having trouble finding it.

Yes, it is rather difficult to find the public meeting agendas online ... here are two links:

http://www.providenceri.com/publicnotices/...otice.php?id=36

and

http://www2.sec.state.ri.us/omfiling/pdffi.../2006/21131.pdf

The dates and times seem all screwed up, but my understanding is that this agenda is tonight's (it says February 7th on the actual pdf). Also, FYI, the Belmonte Castello is on for tonight too (should make for a very long night).

[eltron]

the comp plan is supposed to be updated before the zoning ordinance changed. That is what is holding this up.

This is true, but there are some fatal procedural flaws in the current zoning ordinance.

The city most definitely needs to do a better job of involving the community in the revision process, but the zoning ornidance and comprehensive plan can and needs to be revised concurrently.

Otherwise, the same unpredictable crap like "Belmonte Castello" can keep on popping up, and some very worthy community based projects get held up in procedural no-mans-land and grow close more and more difficult to accomplish.

[lauram]

You could look at it that way, I guess.

OR civic officials could work with the Zoning Board to actually encourage developers to stick to the allowable uses, and limit variances... OR (even better) you could subtly change the requirements that trigger City Plan Commission review. Currently those requirements are based on footprint, I believe, and not total square footage (so stupid). I hear Belmonte was 100 sqft (or so) shy of triggering CPC review. Almost like they planned it that way...

This is true, but there are some fatal procedural flaws in the current zoning ordinance.

The city most definitely needs to do a better job of involving the community in the revision process, but the zoning ornidance and comprehensive plan can and needs to be revised concurrently.

Otherwise, the same unpredictable crap like "Belmonte Castello" can keep on popping up, and some very worthy community based projects get held up in procedural no-mans-land and grow close more and more difficult to accomplish.

[jencoleslaw]

MetroLofts is currently 39, 177 sq ft thus just "this much" too short to trigger CPC review.

this was continued last night, btw, along with the tower of terror.

[Cotuit]

[basachs]

Huh, I have to say I really like it for its simplicity. Some may find it bland, and I can see that too. I think it fits in nicely though with its simplicity.

The buildings along this stretch of Westminster have great architectural appeal, and MetroLofts does not try to overwhelm them, but just tries to nudge in there with a "hey, I am just going to sit right next to you, dont mind me okay?" statement. And a "Oh yeah, i am going to add some height and make the gateway to the neighborhood a bit more appealing"

It looks like an office tower, not a residential tower though. This would really benefit from some nice nightime lighting.

[damus]

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing those towers in Providence for the density, but they just look so average.

[Cotuit]

I saw the elevation drawing first and went, 'meh.' Then I saw them in context and liked them. I'm not a fan of the weird flanges on the roof, what's up with that, the first take of Waterplace had that too.

[Griswald]

I agree they look average, Providence really needs more architecture that reflects the time & technology during which it was designed. This is just starting to happen now, with buildings like 110W. These look like they could have been built any time in the past 100 years.

That said, I think the design is tasteful, and I would welcome these towers as the early stages of more serious development towards the west end.

[gregw]

It's refreshing to see something tasteful, modern, and urban unlike the W. hotel project, which in my mind has the Vegas-style faux classic look. As for the flanges on the roof, they don't project that much more than a lot of cornices on older buildings downtown. Check out the J&W PAR building next to Beneficient Church.

[jencoleslaw]

balconies (either for the residental units, or above the first floor retail with trees in them) and rooftop gardens. This is a rather conservative and boring design though. It looks like an IKEA dresser.