Jump to content

WANDERING: MetroLofts


Recommended Posts

You should come to Providence more often. Then perhaps you'd realize that there are more than 3 or 4 residential units.

I live in Providence and have lived in Silver Lake, Mt. Pleasant, Olneyville, Elmwood, Smith Hill, and the North End for all 31 years of my existence. I'm making a conscious decision to move to EP Nov.1 because the quality of life is better. It is still an urban environment but with many neighborhood services within walking distance. There are minimal issues with rats, graffiti, trash,college kids, vandalism, and overall crime..... which is more than I can say for @ 90% of central Pvd. neighborhoods.There won't be any more parking tickets because my neighbors blocked me in. People won't be cutting down trees and paving backyard lots for more parking....and I am a mere few miles away from the city if I want to go.

Many years ago I was a member of the Concerned Citizens of Mt. Pleasant when Mt. Pleasant was actually a nice place to live. We organized crime watches, cleaned up streets, planted trees, and brought food to the elderly. The association was also involved in bringing a senior center to Chalkstone Ave., encouraging businesses to sweep their sidewalks, and encouraging a developer to build an apt. complex on a vacant trash-strewn lot that we all cleaned. The association was effective and was happy when Walgreens came and redeveloped a lot that was burned in an arson fire. If half of these neighborhood associations could re-direct their time and energy focusing on making a livable community complete with neighborhood services, The Armory wouldn't still be empty. The Louttit complex would be re-developed. North Main wouldn't look like a bomb exploded there and more investment and people would drive the area. To come out and celebrate against this like you won the World Cup because you think it would hurt the scale of your neighborhood is insane. That area has some serious issues and this project could have potentially driven badly needed investment to that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

:rofl:

"Dead and desolate" . . . what? I guess people like Derek, Julian and Phil don't yet realize that they've located their thriving restaurant businesses in such a lousy location - you should tell them. Oh and don't forget to mention it to Jephry's . . . and LiRog's . . . and I guess you should break the news to my tenant who's had his law firm downstairs for the past 6 years. I'm sure they'd all appreciate it.

"The news of Broadway's death has been greatly exagerrated!"

By this I assume you're talking about more mixed use because we already have some. Within the neighborhood commericial nodes, I'd agree.

First Broadway is dying and now Providence is in danger of not thriving . . . :rolleyes:

Regarding the rest of the points raised in your post, Broadway is not Atwells, which I thoroughly enjoy but would never want to buy a house on. The pattern and predominant use of the street is residential with nodes of neighborhood commercial.

Thanks for your concern but we're doing OK . . . really. In spite of the thick stench of death and desolation that hangs over our street, I think Broadway will manage. You can save your lifegiving 300' towers for Elmhurst.

law offices do not make a neighborhood vibrant. they do not attract anyone. i didn't move to elmhurst because i thought "wow, all the doctors and lawyers are here, this must be a fun neighborhood", i moved here because it's close to where i work. i wish we had more mixed use development here and i woudln't mind 300' buildings, but the fact remains that it won't happen here, we're pretty much built out and there's not much interest in the neighborhood. not to mention that we certainly lack the proximity to the CBD that broadway has and since this development was going right on the end of broadway at the edge of downtown, it would not at all have ruined the streetscape. it would haev only improved it.

while broadway might currently be mostly residential, there is much more potential than strictly residential with a few scattered shops and restaurants. it could be and should be a vibrant street and a commercial corridor. law offices and doctors do not make a commercial corridor. streets like that in other cities usually have a ton of people wandering around with a lot of quaint shops, cafes, and restaurants. broadway lacks that. metrolofts would have changed that and been a big boost for the neighborhood.

oh, and providence is in danger of not thriving if people come out yelling and screaming when someone wants good development in a certain neighborhood and eventually the developer gives up because there's no way around the nimby's. the more this happens, the less development we'll get because developers will eventually decide that it's just not worth trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

law offices do not make a neighborhood vibrant. they do not attract anyone. law offices and doctors do not make a commercial corridor. streets like that in other cities usually have a ton of people wandering around with a lot of quaint shops, cafes, and restaurants. broadway lacks that. metrolofts would have changed that and been a big boost for the neighborhood.

:blink:

Let me get this right - you're saying that a tenant who helps property owners like me pay our mortgages, taxes, insurance and maintenance on our homes, isn't making our neighborhood vibrant? Well-maintained homes that are economically viable attract other people into the neighborhood who want to invest. Your definition of vibrant is pretty narrow - it's not just about quaint shops, cafes and restaurants - it's about residential and small business tenants who move in years before the shops cafes and restaurants do.

oh, and providence is in danger of not thriving if people come out yelling and screaming when someone wants good development in a certain neighborhood and eventually the developer gives up because there's no way around the nimby's. the more this happens, the less development we'll get because developers will eventually decide that it's just not worth trying.

I have no problem with "good" development; but I do have a problem with projects that need substantial variances to get off the ground. As I said before, MetroLofts was a great idea in the wrong location. If you need permission to bend the rules to make your project work then you need to be prepared to either compromise or walk away.

To come out and celebrate against this like you won the World Cup because you think it would hurt the scale of your neighborhood is insane. That area has some serious issues and this project could have potentially driven badly needed investment to that area.

You're not trying to suggest that we simply take what we can get, are you? When I read that statement, I thought that was probably the same desperate mindset that allowed the car dealerships to locate along Elmwood and blow-out blocks and blocks of buildings so they could have their car lots. As you know, the dealerships are long gone but the vacant lots remain . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

Let me get this right - you're saying that a tenant who helps property owners like me pay our mortgages, taxes, insurance and maintenance on our homes, isn't making our neighborhood vibrant? Well-maintained homes that are economically viable attract other people into the neighborhood who want to invest. Your definition of vibrant is pretty narrow - it's not just about quaint shops, cafes and restaurants - it's about residential and small business tenants who move in years before the shops cafes and restaurants do.

I have no problem with "good" development; but I do have a problem with projects that need substantial variances to get off the ground. As I said before, MetroLofts was a great idea in the wrong location. If you need permission to bend the rules to make your project work then you need to be prepared to either compromise or walk away.

You're not trying to suggest that we simply take what we can get, are you? When I read that statement, I thought that was probably the same desperate mindset that allowed the car dealerships to locate along Elmwood and blow-out blocks and blocks of buildings so they could have their car lots. As you know, the dealerships are long gone but the vacant lots remain . . .

did you know that oneten westminster needed a variance to build above 300'? did you also know that the superman building, the hospital trust building, the textron building, and even the current westin are all above 300'?

the current zoning laws are flawed. almost any new development needs a variance. i think the current zoning also requires a variance to building to the sidewalk. how dumb is that? so tell me why is it bad that developers want to build buildings that require a variance? so where should metrolofts have gone? they couldn't build their design downtown if they were going above 300'. i guess tall buildings just don't belong in providence? maybe we should cut the tops off the current buildings so they all meet the zoning laws.

yes, lawyers help people with mortgages and accountants help with taxes and insurance agents help with insurance, but the people they bring to the neighborhood go there to see those people and leave. they don't hang around. they can still exist, but it needs more retail (restaurants, cafes, shops, etc). and more density is never a bad thing. i would venture to say that broadway has some of the most under-utilized potential of any street in the city (elmwood ave is up there as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with "good" development; but I do have a problem with projects that need substantial variances to get off the ground. As I said before, MetroLofts was a great idea in the wrong location. If you need permission to bend the rules to make your project work then you need to be prepared to either compromise or walk away.

What Jim said regarding the zoning ordinances. Hey, did you know that the city is in the process of trying to revise the zoning laws? Yup. Because the current ordinances don't work.

[/sarcasm]

I'm not gonna get into it because a lot of this conversation is just rehash. We had all this same nonsense before with the Atwells parcel. But I believe Garris asked you a question in that thread, a question you never bothered to answer. You keep screaming yourself blue in the face about these big projects aimed at Broadway, but would you care to tell us what exactly you have against 300 foot buildings?

Let the WBNA cry all it wants, but eastern Broadway abuts I-95. Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at the Sasaki Plan? I hope you like Domenica Manor, because you're gonna see more of it. Whether you like it or not, that end of Broadway is going to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and look at the real estate listings. all over the city, and in RI in general, prices are falling--i know, i've been out there looking. But guess what? prices aren't falling in Federal Hill--i'm still kind of priced out unless i want a condo, which i do not.

I'm not advocating for or protesting any project in particular, but to say that the broadway is dying clearly wasn't here 15 years ago.... Broadway, as i have mentioned to some of youse guys before, has a peculiar zoning designation of RP with national historic and local historic designation which means that offices of generally 3 floor victorians are its deal. getting retail, restaurants etc in some cases have meant use variances, which people have been able to secure with some success. But it isn't a C-4 designation which means it has different challenges than, say, Thayer Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, boy, MetroLofts and the Access Road area... Where to begin?

Access Road: In my sole and humble opinion, the Access Road corridor really is its own separate development zone and neighborhood, and not really a part of any other neighborhood entity. Not the Broadway neighborhood, not Atwells Ave neighborhood, not Westminster's neighborhood. And it's a dead area, in my view. I drive and/or walk through that area almost every day and have ton lots of photography from there, and it's a void urban space right now. Empty, delapidated buildings, lots of surface parking, nothing to do, nothing to see. It's a zone that's a pedestrian and automotive access to go to places of greater value. People can squint and put blinders on if they want around Westminster St near Classical HS and pretend that's a separate, "vibrant" neighborhood, but I think that's wishful thinking bordering on the delusional.

So whether or not someone thinks buildings proposed for that zone are too high or too small depends entirely if one believes that zone to be its own area, as I do, or part of existing neighborhoods.

In my personal opinion, you could line the Access Road with medium grade height and not change the character or feel of any of the surrounding neighborhoods one iota. If you're in Federal Hill strolling around DePasquale Square or any streetfront fascades for that matter, you're never going to see or feel height at the Atwell's Parcel, for example, and the same would have been true for MetroLofts on Broadway.

My justification for desiring medium height along the Western Access Road corridor (not downtown-grade height) is as follows:

- It will help connect the Western and Eastern sides of the city in urban feel, being a nice "tapering down" to the lower grade structures of the Western neighborhoods. Otherwise, the "city" just ends too dramatically at 95. No one ever meant for 95 to be a border between height and non-height...

- In similar fashion, it will de-emphasize the presence of 95

- It will make the current, existing height on both sides of the Access Road appear less conspicuous

- Height (and the views they provide of downtown) would be one of the only attractions to selling any units there. Why else would anyone want to live in that part of the city right now? The views of Classical HS?

Every past Duany charrette report I've seen and every previous Providence development plan I've seen has wanted to put height there, and I've never lived in a city that hasn't draped its major transport arteries running through a city with height and density. The attraction to commuters and businesses is just too great to ignore, and I bet the economics of the land value of that area won't allow for anything else but height. As Ari is fond of saying, insisting anything else is "playing SimCity."

As for the scale, I don't know how else to say it - 16 stories in an area of 2 to 3 story buildings punctuated by an occasional 5 story building is simply out of scale.

I think it's important to note that I can't think of a single person, myself included, who would ever want height, even medium height, in the Broadway neighborhood itself. That would be inconsistent with the residential, victorian, Main St USA character of the place, but again, I see that as a separate neighborhood.

So that 16 story building isn't "in an area" of anything "punctuated" by anything. It's at the extreme fringe of an area fronting the downtown of one of the densities cities in the US.

MetroLofts: This was a good project by a good group. Why wasn't it too dense? For all the reasons I mention above, plus:

- It would help that whole part of the city achieve critical mass of pedestrian population for arts (Columbus) and retail

- Would dramatically announce that the Access Road was "open for business" and "safe" to invest in

- Would have served as an impressive visual gateway into the city from 95

- Would have maximally taken advantage of the views of the city from there and the access to the highway

- Would have doubled the amount of retail activity in that part of Westmister

- Would have been, the day that Cathedral Square comes down and Westminster is reconnected, a perfect visual link between downtown and the West End, enticing people from the downcity area to walk over

Building a nice, three story, 5 unit condo wouldn't do those things a fraction as well, would be a drop in the bucket of development overall, and, frankly, that kind of thing has already been done in that area and hardly made much of a dramatic impact in any of those regards.

Broadway:

I'm not sure why you'd say it's in a neighborhood that barely exists. I think that area has been transitioning over the last 5 years or so from a heavy commercial use to a more mixed use as witnessed by the increased residential activity.

This is really an issue I'd like to avoid since, as I mention above, I don't think the height/MetroLofts discussion has anything to do with Broadway at all. But it does bring up a neighborhood issue...

I'd say Broadway exists for its residents. It's not really a "destination" for those of us living elsewhere in the metro, and that's one of the key questions that either Cotuit or RunAwayJim brought up at a GCPVD meeting: In the future, the citiy needs to decide which of its neighborhoods are going to be "destination" retail areas, and which are going to mostly serve its residents only.

I see Broadway as serving its residents mostly, not as a destination. Sure the Columbus is there and there are some nice restaurants, but Julian's, Nick's, and Phoenix Dragon (with the exception of its Dim Sum) are the very definition of "neighborhood restaurants." And I think that's fine and perfect. I've heard from some commercial people in that area that there isn't yet "critical mass" in that area to really thrive, but that's a problem plaguing many city neighborhoods right now (a reason we need more density).

I really believe a metro of 800,000 or so needs more than 2-3 streets (Atwells, Thayer, +/- Downcity/Westminster) as regional arts, dining, shopping, and entertainment magnets in its core. As a young woman proclaimed during the recent charrettes, "We need more Thayer Streets!"

I think Broadway, like Chalkstore, Smith St, Broad St, and some other areas, should be tailored more for its residents than anything else. Still, even in that goal, it has a ways to go.

But this is a separate issue (and topic thread) altogether.

- Garris

PS: Quente, you might find a more receptive audience to your viewpoints if you were less smug and confrontational. Intoning people who have lived in the city 30+ years or their entire lives to come into Providence more often certainly doesn't help...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify.

MetroLofts was proposed for Westminster at the Service Road and somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 floors (150-165-ish feet* with a step back around the 3 or 5th floor). The "Atwells Parcel" is at Broadway and the Service Road, is proposed at 300 feet and as of yet, has not been pulled.

*Dominica Manor being 175feet for comparison with no stepback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not broken up that this project is dead...

The idea was alright, but I would most definitely agree that it was overscaled and, *gasp* too dense (on a unit per sqare foot of land area basis).

IF the developer was willing to give back something in return for the huge density bonus they were seeking, you put up with and grow to not notice a tall building, but since we don't have that in place...

Either way, I agree with Jen that this site will most likely not stay empty for long...really, I know I'm a broken record, but that original Rialto furniture proposal should serve as the model for the medium sized *dense* (yes!) developments that should be going in this area...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some questions to clarify the issues for me: Why does everyone expect a new proposal soon?

Doesn't the TPG own this site? And if they're shifting their Metrolofts resources from there to the new proposal for the Forgarty Bldg site and decide to shift their timeframes to do that and the Hilton addition (if any) before the MetroLofts site, things could take a while...

On the contrary, I fear this is the last action we could see there for some time if my above assumptions are true and if the street grid issues Cotuit brings up aren't addressed.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some questions to clarify the issues for me: Why does everyone expect a new proposal soon?

On the contrary, I fear this is the last action we could see there for some time if my above assumptions are true and if the street grid issues Cotuit brings up aren't addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you read cotuit's post where he said that metrolofts was supposed to be about 150-160'? that's not even 200', nevermind 300'.

also, the whole planning by variance thing is likely to change. i believe they're planning on re-writing zoning laws, which will probably allow for more height across the board, except in seriously residential places like elmhurst, mount pleasant, much of the east side, etc. 150-160' is not tall, in fact, it's shorter than dominica manor.

and this project was not an ugly building like dominica manor, so i don't know where you're getting that from. yes, it would have needed a dumpster and possibly a service entrance, but bordering the service road, they'd probably put it there rather than on a residential street.

and traffic is not something to complain about. a lot of traffic is a good thing, it's a sign that the city is flourishing. i also suspect that many people who would have lived in this building would not have had cars or would rarely use them.

and brown's science library is barely noticed when walking down thayer unless you look for it. the activity going on at street level is enough distraction to pull attention away from the towering library, not to mention brown does things like hang artwork from the sides to make it less ugly (i really liked the donkey int he boat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, the whole planning by variance thing is likely to change.

and this project was not an ugly building like dominica manor, so i don't know where you're getting that from.

and brown's science library is barely noticed when walking down thayer unless you look for it. the activity going on at street level is enough distraction to pull attention away from the towering library, not to mention brown does things like hang artwork from the sides to make it less ugly (i really liked the donkey int he boat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.