The Anti-NIMBY crew

[jencoleslaw]

I doubt that anyone here is the way you think they are. Nobody is out to ignore our neighborhoods by supporting developments in and around them. If anything, people on this site are more for a traditional urban Providence than most of the city's, dare I say, "urban planning UN-educated" residents are. We want what is best for our CITY, and probably agree with most of what you say, it's just not getting across right. Development, when it fits the surrounding neighborhood, and especially when it increases density (this is a city), is generally a positive thing. Do you disagree with this?

Positive development in every corner of Providence's neighborhoods (residential, commercial and mixed use) is a good thing and something i support personally, professionally and appointedly (if that's a word). I would say, without trying to start a sh*t storm (honestly) that many folks on this board may be very urban planning educated and have great ideas about the highest and best use of certain projects/properties, but i would also say that a fair share of folks in and around UP are really "neighborhood and community UN-educated."

And i apologize in advance if that is offensive to folks here, but ya catch more flies with honey than with a big fat sledgehammer.

[Garris]

many folks on this board may be very urban planning educated and have great ideas about the highest and best use of certain projects/properties, but i would also say that a fair share of folks in and around UP are really "neighborhood and community UN-educated."

Compared to whom and by what standard?

- Garris

[Recchia]

many folks on this board may be very urban planning educated and have great ideas about the highest and best use of certain projects/properties, but i would also say that a fair share of folks in and around UP are really "neighborhood and community UN-educated."

But the majority of us live in these neighborhoods and communities, how could we be un-educated? I, of course, live in Pawtucket so I usually stay out of topics specifically related to certain neighborhoods in Providence. But still, when most people on this board are clamoring for projects that increase density (and therefore, in my opinion at least, better neighborhoods) and adhere to the architectural quality of the neighborhood that they are in, then how could we not care about that neighborhood?

Again, I think we're on the same page here for the most part, it's just hard sometimes to express opinions in words on a message board.

[gregw]

Forgive me if I sound dense but can someone tell me some of these good development projects in and around Providence that have been placed in jeopardy by NIMBY's?

[jencoleslaw]

the unfortunate thing about this wonderful interweb business is that it generally lacks tone. When someone says

I propose we (anyone on here interested) form an anti-NIMBY constorium to attend any and all zoning, DRC, city plan meetings to stand up to the NIMBYs and special interests that currently dominate these forums. ... Almost every city official (or anyone who has tried to pursue a change to the built environment/status quo) has said the NIMBYs are a forced to be reckoned with and have a significant role in killing worthy projects. WE CAN HELP.

it seems condescending, even if it isn't meant to be. It reads like "the neighbors don't know anything about development so let's show up and show 'em how its done." and as a veteran, (on both sides of the room now) of these sorts of meetings, i know that if folks from the east side show up at a meeting about Olneyville, let's say, and argues for some project that the neighbors find abhorrent for whatever reason/right or wrong, i just don't think that's going to go over real well.

Just because someone says "not in my back yard" doesn't mean that person is somehow wrong headed or under educated. Bad development is bad development in anyone's back yard. While i wholeheartedly agree that too often providence residents take a hard and fast stand on any development which can sometimes make it a tough row to hoe for developers, i'd be hard pressed to find any development (good or bad) that has actually been honestly hampered and irrevocably harmed by resident protest and participation.

[Cotuit]

but ya catch more flies with honey than with a big fat sledgehammer.

That's funny.

[runawayjim]

the unfortunate thing about this wonderful interweb business is that it generally lacks tone. When someone says

it seems condescending, even if it isn't meant to be. It reads like "the neighbors don't know anything about development so let's show up and show 'em how its done." and as a veteran, (on both sides of the room now) of these sorts of meetings, i know that if folks from the east side show up at a meeting about Olneyville, let's say, and argues for some project that the neighbors find abhorrent for whatever reason/right or wrong, i just don't think that's going to go over real well.

Just because someone says "not in my back yard" doesn't mean that person is somehow wrong headed or under educated. Bad development is bad development in anyone's back yard. While i wholeheartedly agree that too often providence residents take a hard and fast stand on any development which can sometimes make it a tough row to hoe for developers, i'd be hard pressed to find any development (good or bad) that has actually been honestly hampered and irrevocably harmed by resident protest and participation.

there's a certain knowledge that someone from the east side might have that someone from olneyville might not (not to say people from olneyville are dum, that's not what i'm getting at). so if there's a proposal for olneyville and the residents of that neighborhood are up in arms for whatever reason, they might be up in arms for the wrong reasons, such as it's change and they don't like change (this can go for any neighborhood, especially where the residents have been there for many many many years). the difference that the east side has is a larger abundance of people who haven't lived there for nearly as long. there's more turn around with the rental units there because of the colleges. same goes for elmhurst and parts of federal hill. areas like olneyville, mount pleasant, wanskuck, the north end, and even the south side all have more people who have lived in those neighborhoods for much longer. the biggest problem with NIMBY-ism is the fear of change. i can't think of a greater reason people are against new development than it changes things. so someone who has studied it, yet doesn't live in the same neighborhood, might be able to argue that the new development could really help turn olneyville around. clean it up a bit and stuff.

yes, bad development is bad development. the people on UP aren't all "yay, all new development is good development". they're critical of it (look at sierra suites and the ugly building they want that doesn't fit in with the providence "look").

what the "anti-nimby coalition" should be looking to do is educate the neighborhood residents on why the new development would help them and explain the benefits to it. ease their minds, get them less afraid of change. and i think that's what ari meant when he started this thread. obviously, you can't walk into a meeting and tell the neighborhood people they're wrong and the development should go through without explaining why.

[Lone Ranger]

Runaway Jim (and others), you may enjoy a fabulous piece that appeared in the New Yorker in 2004. Its about why NYC is actually the "greenest" city because of the public transit, energy used, etc. Very interesting stuff. I may have posted a link before, but here it is again ...

"The utopian community was Manhattan."

That article is incredible.

[Jerry2]

the unfortunate thing about this wonderful interweb business is that it generally lacks tone. When someone says

it seems condescending, even if it isn't meant to be. It reads like "the neighbors don't know anything about development so let's show up and show 'em how its done." and as a veteran, (on both sides of the room now) of these sorts of meetings, i know that if folks from the east side show up at a meeting about Olneyville, let's say, and argues for some project that the neighbors find abhorrent for whatever reason/right or wrong, i just don't think that's going to go over real well.

Just because someone says "not in my back yard" doesn't mean that person is somehow wrong headed or under educated. Bad development is bad development in anyone's back yard. While i wholeheartedly agree that too often providence residents take a hard and fast stand on any development which can sometimes make it a tough row to hoe for developers, i'd be hard pressed to find any development (good or bad) that has actually been honestly hampered and irrevocably harmed by resident protest and participation.

I'm just curious. What makes you a veteran? You've been to a few neighborhood meetngs? What insight do you bring to the table that says that one particular development is better than the next? You're opinion on the Westminster side-street abandonment was ridiculous and far-fetched. I'm not sure about your passion. What drives you?

[Garris]

Forgive me if I sound dense but can someone tell me some of these good development projects in and around Providence that have been placed in jeopardy by NIMBY's?

Certainly the one here in Wayland Square at the Katherine Gibbs property was at risk...

I think the biggest "in jeopardy" idea (more than a specific project) is the idea of multipurpose development of the India Point waterfront freed up by the relocation of 195. I think many believe this development would be critical to linking three isolated neighborhoods (South Main/South Water, Wickenden, and the arts/entertainment district currently on the water there) and creating a signature "entrance" to the waterway that is the gateway to the city.

There are very reactionary individuals who believe that land should be preserved as open space and used to extend India Point Park. I personally believe that this is a terrible idea, and would keep the three above neighborhoods the current isolated, uninspired, and underdeveloped regions they currently are. The linkage of those three areas together was a historically vital district going back to merchantile times (look at any old photos of Providence) that was displaced by 195. Even the PPS argues this area should be redeveloped and resume its historical prominence as a neighborhood (Jack Gold, hardly a reckless pro-development stooge, in a wonderful presentation on the waterfront suggested Boston style piers projecting into the water on the other side of the Bay as a complement to it).

I'm all for pedestrian bridges across the river and an extension of Waterplace on the water's edge to connect to India Point park, but I think the suggestions being put forward to preserve all that 195 land as band shells and trees with benches instead of what could be a vital urban link and one of New England's most interesting new urban neighborhoods would completely be, as Cotuit coined, a "hundred year mistake" of the biggest magnitude.

I'm all for strong parks and I love India Point Park, the idea of burying the power lines, etc, but this one is wrong, and the India Point folks seem ready to sacrifice everything for this ideal.

And this issue goes waaaay beyond just being a Fox Point issue. Especially as we get closer to the core of the city and the waterfront, these issues go beyond being neighborhood parochial and everyone in the entire region has a stake. That's how I feel about the airport too. Yes, there are neighborhood issues brought up, but there are also 1.5 million people in the entire region whose economic destiny, in some part, is tied to the development of that airport. The Fox Point people are just going to have to put up with people showing up at their meetings from Federal Hill, and Downtown, and Hope Village and caring.

That's just how I feel, my apparently un-educated opinion. This kind of existential fight is exactly what I think a group like Ari is suggesting is necessary for. When you have a group of "NIMBY's" like the Fox Point folks ready to eat their own young to prevent this development from happening, you need an impassioned group to stand for something else, if for no other reason than to put forward an alternative opinion and a counterbalance.

I'm ready to do everything I can to prevent the enormous mistake that is the India Point group's vision from happening on that 195 land...

- Garris

[Cotuit]

I think the biggest "in jeopardy" idea (more than a specific project) is the idea of multipurpose development of the India Point waterfront freed up by the relocation of 195.

Were you just reading the Providence 2020 thread or somehting, 'cos I was.

as Cotuit coined, a "hundred year mistake"

Credit where credit is due, I'm pretty sure that was eltron.

[Cotuit]

The Fox Point people are just going to have to put up with people showing up at their meetings from Federal Hill, and Downtown, and Hope Village and caring.

Balkanization is one of the biggest problems facing this region and holding us back. New England has 6 states that all set thier own independent agenda, each state has independent cities and towns (most of us have little or no county level of government) that set their own agendas... Now we should allow individual neighbourhoods within those cities and towns to set their own agendas regardless of the effects on the city and state and region as a whole? I don't want our city to play like that. We all have a stake, we all have a voice.

[jencoleslaw]

I'm just curious. What makes you a veteran? You've been to a few neighborhood meetngs? What insight do you bring to the table that says that one particular development is better than the next? You're opinion on the Westminster side-street abandonment was ridiculous and far-fetched. I'm not sure about your passion. What drives you?

OK!

Good luck with that Anti-Nimby Coalition!

[gregw]

I'm just curious. What makes you a veteran? You've been to a few neighborhood meetngs? What insight do you bring to the table that says that one particular development is better than the next? You're opinion on the Westminster side-street abandonment was ridiculous and far-fetched. I'm not sure about your passion. What drives you?

She is on the City Plan Commission so she might know a thing or two about development issues. Besides, you can disagree without labeling someone's opinion "ridiculous," which is just disrespectful and immature. If I want that, I'll just tune into talk radio.

[Jerry2]

She is on the City Plan Commission so she might know a thing or two about development issues. Besides, you can disagree without labeling someone's opinion "ridiculous," which is just disrespectful and immature. If I want that, I'll just tune into talk radio.

First of all, the city plan commission is a volunteer position. She is a resident just like we all are. I'm not an urban planning professional nor do I claim to be...However, it is my hobby and I do know a thing or two about development patterns in the city.I've lived here for 30 years. When sensible development projects are scrutinized ( the Westminster alley abandonment) to the point of unfeasibility, it becomes very ridiculous. This is not a personal shot at her. I understand there is a process with every design and some designs must adhere to the city's historic character. (Sierra Suites) However, I don't think there is a cohesive strategy in place to work with developers in collectively creating a nice structure. I think it's entirely too much when the public is fooled to believe that a building will affect thir way of life.

If you think NIMBY's didn't have a say in anything, please look down the road at Eagle Square. While they have done a tremendous job with the rehab and the supply of much needed services, the projet was overdone. They constructed far too many buildings that look like a messy village center. None of the stores open to Atwells. They are clustered together creating a cavernous feeling that is not very pleasing to the eye. The complex has been open for 2 years and is still not fully occupied yet 75K people live within 1 mile. The NIMBY crew were out in full force on this one with their "village center" ideas. Overdone. North Main Street various developments?

[runawayjim]

Balkanization is one of the biggest problems facing this region and holding us back. New England has 6 states that all set thier own independent agenda, each state has independent cities and towns (most of us have little or no county level of government) that set their own agendas... Now we should allow individual neighbourhoods within those cities and towns to set their own agendas regardless of the effects on the city and state and region as a whole? I don't want our city to play like that. We all have a stake, we all have a voice.

the states are too small to have real county governments. i'm personally surprised that RI has more than 1 or 2 counties. i am, however, all for the new england states being independent of each other. they each have their own specific claim to fame.

however, it's a statewide issue. it shouldn't go as far as neighborhoods deciding what to do and not hearing what people who live outside that neighborhood (yet still in the city) have to say. as you said, we all have something to gain or lose, but we all gain or lose it equally across the board.

[gregw]

If you think NIMBY's didn't have a say in anything, please look down the road at Eagle Square. While they have done a tremendous job with the rehab and the supply of much needed services, the projet was overdone. They constructed far too many buildings that look like a messy village center. None of the stores open to Atwells. They are clustered together creating a cavernous feeling that is not very pleasing to the eye. The complex has been open for 2 years and is still not fully occupied yet 75K people live within 1 mile. The NIMBY crew were out in full force on this one with their "village center" ideas. Overdone. North Main Street various developments?

I don't remember that the so-called NIMBYs had a say in how many new buildings got constructed. That was Feldco's decision. They objected to the proposed demolition of the mills and succeeded in having four of them reused.

Also in opposing Feldco's plan, these "NIMBYs" contacted and got Bill Struever of Baltimore to submit an alternative design for Eagle Square, which was not used. However, getting Struever involved led directly to him acquiring and rehabbing Rising Sun, and then Puente, ALCO, etc. So it seems that those "NIMBYs" did a hell of a lot of good for Providence.

With Eagle Square, would you have preferred Feldco's original strip mall or do you think that the project, as realized, should have less density (probably meaning more surface parking)?

As for North Main St, if it's the blighted upper part of North Main that you mean, I think it's fair to say that NIMBYism has had zero effect there. Neighbors in Summit object to surface parking there, pawn shops, strip mall development, and what have they gotten? Surface parking lots, pawn shops, and strip mall development! They have tried for years to get Miriam to put up a parking structure there and have gotten nowhere!

[Dan]

With Eagle Square... do you think that the project, as realized, should have less density (probably meaning more surface parking)?

It definitely would be nice. If that place is supposedly 75 % occupied, I don't know how they could possibly accommodate a full house if the retail space is fully occupied. I went to Radio Shack the other day and there was 1 parking spot in that whole lot (facing the back end of Shaw's).

Its an odd property, the traffic flow design is not very smart. If I was addicted to Dunkin coffee like the rest of RI, I would hate having to drive into that corner of the maze every day. I don't know if I'd want to live there. I like Rising Sun though!

[billypc99]

I think there is an underappreciated impact that NIMBYism has had is on projects that some on this board have not adequately recognized. Im talking about past projects that were impacted by Nimbyism. When I was home over Christmas I had the fortunate experience of discussing this issue with a present member of the DRC and a couple of other intricate persons in past/present city and state planning. To my surprise, there have been several projects in the past decade that investors/developers pulled out of becuase they didn't want to deal with a public outcry or face an uphill battle. I was surprised to hear about some of the projects and a few were alleged to be directly impacted by fear of irrational public outcry. Most were either on east side or federal hill. There were two near the base of college hill and one company would have had a major impact on the city and called for a cluster of mid to high rises that made the capitol cove project look like a pothole. I was very surprised that I had never heard of this project. I guess it was like OTW, which seemingly came out of nowhere. Maybe they had an NDA in place. A couple of interesting points/questions for the board as a result of what I heard the group I spoke with

I was suprised to hear the alleged real story as to why Sundlun was so opposed to former proposals at the current Masonic Temple site. Very disappointing....talk about using Nimbyism to disguise financial bitterness. I always wondered why Sundlun kept going on and on about how the view of the state house from route 95 was goint to ruined by any of the tower proposals at the temple site.

Has anyone ever heard a story about exactly why Ten Park Row pulled out? I heard a couple of rumors, but does anyone have the true story?

Has anyone ever heard about CVS tower proposal from the early 90's on or ajacent to the citizens building? Someone suggested that they were "scared away" because they found only a very large project was economically feasible.

[citygirl]

As one who has been involved quite a bit thinking about India Point Park and its relationship to the whole head of the Bay, I know that it's completely inaccurate to characterize those of us who have concerns as NIMBYs. I for one would love to see it as public space, not just some vague and truncated "open"space. I do agree that right now, the park is severely disconnected from users and from the rest of the city. Building a wall of 30-story condominiums will not fix that problem. The public (i.e. us) has invested huge amounts of public money into making the waterfront an inviting and wonderful place again. It's galling to think that we who paid for this transformation will be excluded from enjoying the results! Furthermore, that little sliver of land at the head of Narragansett Bay could serve as a huge signature location for Providence. I've already heard of proposals for a kiosk to support bike tours of the city and east bay; coupled with boat and canoe/kayak launches, maybe a seafood store and restaurant (how weird is it that the capital of the ocean state doesn't seem to have a fresh seafood market! ), a band shell or other venue where crowds can gather..... wouldn't that be great? What's NIMBY about that vision?

If any of you actually read the Sasaki plan or went to the public meetings, you would agree on two things:

1) there wasn't anything TO the Sasaki plan; it was pro-forma, tired, and completely lacking in any innovative or interesting insights about the specifics of Providence. The version of the plan posted on the city's website had nothing substantive to comment on; it was full of pictures from other places, or re-used the same locations over and over again. We did not get what we paid for, and we certainly didn't get what the RFP called for! Most egregiously, it called itself Providence 2020, but was only about a small portion of the city.

2) the few of us who did attend the public meetings were treated as tiresome obstructionists. It was difficult to extract any information from the planning department, and they refused to do anything even as simple as posting public comments on the plan.

Yes, there are a lot of NIMBYs out there, but as another poster said, not everyone who objects to a project or development is a NIMBY. What's very clear is that the public needs to be able to comment and review intelligently when these proposals come forward. And there are tools to help do that. For example, the density catalog from the Lincoln Land Institute gives examples showing how the same number of units can look and feel completely different depending on how the development is done, how they're placed on the street and in context, and other factors. The visual preference surveys, most well known by Anton Nelessen, consistently demonstrate that when shown choices in context, the public always opts for higher density, walkability, and lively streets. Providence did nothing to provide that kind of information during the zoning process. People were left to imagine the worst kind of mediocre, cheap, ill-suited development --- and given the history of backroom deals, they would probably be right!

Rather than putting down skeptics who aren't with the program, maybe we should find out why they aren't, and provide compelling evidence in support of our approach

[Recchia]

Rather than putting down skeptics who aren't with the program, maybe we should find out why they aren't, and provide compelling evidence in support of our approach

I think we can all agree with that statement. I've always said that there should be a way to educate the public as to what makes good urban design.

[Mij]

As one who has been involved quite a bit thinking about India Point Park and its relationship to the whole head of the Bay, I know that it's completely inaccurate to characterize those of us who have concerns as NIMBYs.

Your right. It's not completely inaccurate to characterize those of you who have concerns as NIMBYs, but if you were at the same public forums I attended, then we both can agree that some of opposition to the 2020 plan was unneeded. For some reason a lady suggesting that we plant trees along the highway rather allowing the area along side these eye soars to develop, hits me as nimby not concerning. For the sake of the foxpoint area, the dot has put on their website, http://www.dot.state.ri.us/projects/constr...pedbr/index.htm the best case solution for the "nimby". a new pedestrian bridge that has the best connection to the open space since pre

[Cotuit]

Building a wall of 30-story condominiums will not fix that problem.

Well the thing is no one has proposed 30-story condos at Fox's Point. Sasaki proposed (I believe) 150, then then knocked that back to 100 or 90 feet in the face of oppostion. A 30-story building would be the tallest building in the city and be more than 400 feet tall. I can't find a direct example of what a one-hundred foot building would be because it is so short that all the sites that list building height rank don't go that low, because 100 feet is so short. The Old Stone Bank Building is 150 feet.

Furthermore, that little sliver of land at the head of Narragansett Bay could serve as a huge signature location for Providence. I've already heard of proposals for a kiosk to support bike tours of the city and east bay; coupled with boat and canoe/kayak launches, maybe a seafood store and restaurant (how weird is it that the capital of the ocean state doesn't seem to have a fresh seafood market! ), a band shell or other venue where crowds can gather..... wouldn't that be great?

Yes, all that would be wonderful, and building on the private land at Fox's Point will not preclude any of that from happening. In fact I think having residents living at Fox's Point will make all that more likely.

I also think that land is hardly a sliver, India Point Park as it is now is huge. It's interesting the way size is messed with depending on what side of the issue you're on. 100 feet suddenly becomes 30-stories, 18-acres (India Point Park not including Fox's Point) becomes a sliver...

[Cotuit]

We can have short buildings built to the water.

Or we can allow taller buildings in exchange for open space at the water's edge. I'm failing to see where the "wall" is here.

What won't be happening is the city won't be taking the land by eminent domain to add it to India Point Park as completely open space. The city is bankrupt and does not have the money to do that. Nor, do I think they should. And nothing will be changing in India Point Park, no one is at all saying that anything should or could be built in India Point Park, and there will be no "wall" disconnecting it from the rest of the city other than the highway that exists now.

[Mij]

Or we can allow taller buildings in exchange for open space at the water's edge. I'm failing to see where the "wall" is here.

What won't be happening is the city won't be taking the land by eminent domain to add it to India Point Park as completely open space. The city is bankrupt and does not have the money to do that. Nor, do I think they should. And nothing will be changing in India Point Park, no one is at all saying that anything should or could be built in India Point Park, and there will be no "wall" disconnecting it from the rest of the city other than the highway that exists now.

This image gives me great hope. I see a complete connection to the city from fox point. The city reclaiming it's water front, offering its pedestrian residents an amzing walkable enviornment. If i were a resident of fox point I would be patting the backs of the desing team over at Saki's, b/c my property value just went up, and my health could potentialy be much better if i were to take a walk along the park system that will go right into waterplace.... I dont no, just looking at these the idae that "pro-forma, tired, and completely lacking in any innovative or interesting insights about the specifics of Providence" just really flies over my head.