The Anti-NIMBY crew

[Garris]

"I do agree that right now, the park is severely disconnected from users and from the rest of the city."

Absolutely, and that needs to be addressed. But those three neighborhoods are also severely disconnected from themselves, from residents, and from the rest of the city. Using that land as parkland will not fix that problem.

How about a solution that fixes all of those problems? A solution like that which Cotuit pasted above that connects those neighborhoods together for development and has greenspace along the water connecting to the park?

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

I'm not sure what to say about a comment like this... As Cotuit reservedly pointed out, nothing remotely of this scale has been proposed for that area (or any area outside of the financial district) and that would be as silly as the similarly hyperbolic example of a 20 story building for Wayland Square given in a hypothetical example above. Comments like this only serve to undermine the rest of the argument and roll the eyes of pro-smart-growth people like myself who could knee jerk conclude, "See, they don't want any development at all..."

"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!"

I may be missing something here, but every proposal has included pedestrian bridges, marinas, extension of Waterplace, a large park in the Canal St area, etc at a very minimum... Where is this "exclusion from enjoying the results?"

"Furthermore, that little sliver of land at the head of Narragansett Bay..."

Cotuit has already addressed this...

"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, a band shell or other venue where crowds can gather..... wouldn't that be great? What's NIMBY about that vision?"

All are wonderful ideas, all are in no way prevented by reasonable connecting development in Fox Point, and all would enormously benefit from a new residential neighborhood right nearby to use such amenities.

Oh, and "What's NIMBY about that vision?" On the surface, nothing at all. But the band shell you mentioned, for example, was angrily proposed as a substitute for development by at least one person at the Providence 2020 meeting. I love all of those ideas, but as a complement to neighborhood development and park enhancement, not a replacement. When its a replacement, it becomes anti-development.

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

I'll agree on 1 and 1/2 things. I agree the Sasaki plan was quite pedestrian and lacking in much vision, underachieving dramatically. I thought the best part of that work, though, were two aspects: 1) The idea to connect Wickenden, South Main, and the Fox Point waterfront with a renewal of the historical level of development there prior to 195. 2) The emphasis on connecting with the waterfront.

I heard quite a lot of obstructionist comments from the audience, however, the "tree lady's" one being the fringe-level example. I can understand why such comments would be viewed that way...

"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...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!"

I'd love to hear more about these density catalogs. Could you tell us more?

"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 agree with this in theory, but I've found many people to be completely closed minded. My trying to find why they aren't with the program comes down to them not wanting development.

I promise what follows is a near transcript (as much as my memory allows) from a meeting I attended in Wayland Square about a year ago about the (quite reasonable) Kathy Gibbs property:

After an hour of NIMBY-esque comments (see my post above for those comments)

Me: "Ok, I think everyone here has done a great job at expressing what you don't want, but I don't think we're articulating a very good vision to the developers of what we do want."

Gathered group: <absolute silence for about 10 seconds>

Neighbor (who I otherwise like a lot, but she give me a little "you moron" kind of giggle): "Well, I guess what we really want is nothing there at all."

<Murmors of agreement>

Me: "Ok, the developers paid a million dollars for that land, and they're going to put something there. They're not just going to build a little park because we want them to. How about we at least give them a guideline for something we can accept. Lets draw up some standards of height, materials, and scale that they can realistically aim for."

Gathered group: <another 10 seconds of absolute silence>

One of my condo board members: "Well, I think until the time comes when it's absolutely clear that something is eminent, I think we should just fight them in-full and block everything until a day comes when shovels will go into the ground. Then we'll work on details and compromise."

<More murmors of agreement>

This was an extremely dispiriting meeting. I think that's the prevailing attitude that a group like Ari's would hope to combat. Rather than the "go for broke until such time compromise is inevitable" approach that many neighborhood groups take (and seems to be the Fox Point approach as well), I'd rather have a group like Ari's (pro-growth, smart, and realistic) that has as a mission a reasoned approach to needed development.

I have to say that with the rarest of exceptions, I've not seen any radial, pro-growth, stooge-esque comments here on UP-Providence. I've never seen anyone advocating 30 story towers bordering India Park, 20 story towers in Wayland Square, bulldozing Thomas street for a Gehry-esque center, etc. I think most of the ideas here are quite reasonable.

To those who see themselves as development skeptical protectors of the public trust, what is wrong with any of the Prov 2020-eque ideas that Cotuit pasted above?

- Garris

[Garris]

Oh, as if my post above wasn't long enough, I wanted to make two more comments:

1) To GregW's excellent post, I agree with his comment on the Summit group. Their ideas have been largely excellent, and I thought their comprehensive plan for Miriam's expansion was 100% better than Lifespan's.

That said, what they are doing I'd never characterize as NIMBY-ism (well, at least later on...). They saw Miriam expansion and development along North Main as inevitable, and have tried to fight for good development. This is not the same as fighting the entire idea of development at all, or at least realistic development, which the Fox Point and College Hill groups tend to do more of...

2) I strongly believe there are some financial issues and class envy at work in neighborhood groups opposition to projects. For example, in Wayland Square, I've heard comments like, "Well, how much more money does Armory need to make?" and "There's no way I'd ever support a project that I wasn't able to afford a unit in" far more than once.

I've also heard many people, in a fascinating and perverse flip side to people fearing property values will go down, express fear that property values will go up. Especially here on the East Side, there's a good amount of "old money" families where the current occupants inherited that grand old Blackstone home, but those same occupants aren't high earning and fear increases in property values will increase tax valuations. Interesting stuff...

- Garris

[Dan]

in Wayland Square, I've heard... "There's no way I'd ever support a project that I wasn't able to afford a unit in" far more than once.

If this were the case I would be opposed to every single project discussed on this board.

They're worried about the taxes? Why don't they downsize - sell and move to Pawtucket!

[mental757]

this is where i stray a bit from the YIMBY viewpoint (and ari mentioned that people will disagree). warwick is very suburban, especially around the airport (talk about cookie cutter neighborhoods). the airport is loud, my aunt has lived by it, all sides of it too. expanding will most likely require buying people out, and what is the likelihood that the state will not only buy the property (at real market value), but also pay people for relocation costs?

so to a certain degree, i don't blame them. on the other hand, i also agree that airport expansion would be great for the state...

relo costs are included in the home buy-outs. I've heard the vast majority or people already relocated were pleased with the process.

anyway...

[jencoleslaw]

I've also heard many people, in a fascinating and perverse flip side to people fearing property values will go down, express fear that property values will go up. Especially here on the East Side, there's a good amount of "old money" families where the current occupants inherited that grand old Blackstone home, but those same occupants aren't high earning and fear increases in property values will increase tax valuations. Interesting stuff...

- Garris

i hear more worry about property values going up, rather than going down especially in my neighborhood. I suspect the reason is that folks believe their taxes (especially for what they get as far as services go) are already high enough. In addition, higher property values means that their kids or perhaps they themselves won't be able to afford to buy homes in that neighborhood. Just in the last year, it seems, rents alone around the city have doubled. Have salaries? Have city services doubled their efforts? Providence residents live here not just because it is a hip cool place, but for a very long time it was a very cheap place to live. With three family tenements, which used to house working class families and people just starting out in life, being turned into condos (because the price of the house was so high that whomever bought it had to condo it in order to just live there) i can't help but wonder how and where people of modest means are going to live in the city?

[Cotuit]

i hear more worry about property values going up, rather than going down especially in my neighborhood. I suspect the reason is that folks believe their taxes (especially for what they get as far as services go) are already high enough.

The level of taxation is not the fault of the developers. If people are concerned about their tax rates, they need to be talking to the Mayor and City Council and Governor. If we don't have more properties bringing in more tax revenue, than we'll continue with the status quo of an under-funded city performing poorly on delivering municipal services.

Increased density should also lead to a leveling off of the tax rate (property values may rise, and tax costs with them, but the tax rate may finally stop going up). When you have one person living on a block, that block still needs to be plowed, still needs police services, still needs it's street lights repaired, it's potholes filled. All that has to come out of the one person's taxes. If there are 100 people on the block, there isn't suddenly more snow to plow, more cops aren't needed, more streetlights do not need to be added, the same potholes are there as were before (well increased traffic may lead to a few more holes), but there are more people to spread the burden of the cost amongst (obviously I understand that the people on the block are not directly taxed, it's a simple illlustration).

[Recchia]

But at the same time, aren't rising property values good for those in these neighborhoods who do own their homes? (I'm asking because I really don't know)

And with all this extra tax income that the city is getting over the past 10 years, why haven't their been noticeable improvements in services and infrastructure? Where's the money going? Why do parts of Providence (i.e. sidewalks) look like their from post-war Eastern Europe?

[runawayjim]

i hear more worry about property values going up, rather than going down especially in my neighborhood. I suspect the reason is that folks believe their taxes (especially for what they get as far as services go) are already high enough. In addition, higher property values means that their kids or perhaps they themselves won't be able to afford to buy homes in that neighborhood. Just in the last year, it seems, rents alone around the city have doubled. Have salaries? Have city services doubled their efforts? Providence residents live here not just because it is a hip cool place, but for a very long time it was a very cheap place to live. With three family tenements, which used to house working class families and people just starting out in life, being turned into condos (because the price of the house was so high that whomever bought it had to condo it in order to just live there) i can't help but wonder how and where people of modest means are going to live in the city?

this is interesting because there was a recent viewpoint on craigslist that said that providence has high rents. i have yet to see this. i live in a 1br apartment and pay a reasonable rent. i've checked 2br rents on craigslist just to prove them wrong and i was right. plenty can be had for $1000 or less for a 2br in a decent neighborhood.

providence, being a city of its caliber, has pretty low rents. granted, the average salaries haven't gone up much, but i don't consider rents to be all that bad. i've been living in a 1br since i moved here, paying all my utilities (phone, cell phone, cable tv, cable internet, electricity, gas) myself. when i first moved here, my salary was very low for what it should have been (and pretty low in general). i managed to enjoy myself and pay all my bills on time. my rents have all been around $700 a month.

[brick]

But at the same time, aren't rising property values good for those in these neighborhoods who do own their homes? (I'm asking because I really don't know)

This will lead the conversation very far afield, but one problem with rising home values are less than completely honest mortgage brokers getting people to fund their big screen TVs and Lexus SUVs by leveraging all of the equity in their home. There are some great reasons to pull equity out of your home, using the income as disposable isn't one of them.

[gregw]

Rising home prices are good if you're looking to sell.

Otherwise, it has a way of translating into higher property taxes. (A lot of people in my neighborhood found this out big time with the last reval!)

Also rising home prices can certainly change the demographics of a neighborhood. This can be good if you live in an area where your old neighbors were crack addicts and the new folks who come in stablize the area.

On the other hand, if your old neighbors were nice down-to-earth people of modest means, it can be sad to see them sell out (or get taxed out).

[Cotuit]

Not being an economist, I can't say how sound a proposal this is, but this is what David Segal (East Side City Councilor) proposed as a possible fix for our property tax system.

http://www.votesegal.com/fixing.html

Property tax reform has to be done through the government, blocking development is not going to solve our property tax issues, and could exascerbate them as the city will have to continue to do more with less as marginal properties continue to be worth less than their potential.

[Jerry2]

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!

The Eagle Square development was constructed in a way as to appease certain people in the area. Granted, many of the people that objected to the plan were displaced artists and the like, but the public had the last say in what was developed. The development, in my eyes, has been a failure. The original plans called for a suburban style development with anchor stores and parking and the obliteration of all the mill buildings. The people rightfully complained to save the structures that were deemed salvageable and FELDCO designed their new plan. However, when people weren't satisfied after all was said and done, the plan had to be re-evaluated to incorporate their ideas into the project. Result: a shi**y design

In a city such as Providence with its anti-business pro-entitlement mindset, a car is necessary to take you to the majority of places that you visit in your everyday life. ( job, market,laundromat, bank, etc.) Eagle Square should have accomodated the 75K people that live within the 1 mile of its boundaries. While everybody is so anti-surface parking, it is necessary with certain projects. The Dunkin Donuts and Cingular Wireless building was too much and the plaza is cut off from the street. I feel that certain areas ( historic ) of the city don't have the layout to support current large-scale development. However, areas like Eagle Square, North Main, and the Promenade can support much needed services to a community that has to travel outside the city almost all the time to get what it needs...and business can be integrated with historical preservation designs.

[jencoleslaw]

the epic battle of eagle square should probably have its own thread. It really was a turning point in Providence's major land development process. You can consider it a failure if you want, and you certainly have a right to be wrong, but i think it changed the face of development in Providence forever. and I suspect that i'm not alone in that.

your mileage may vary.

[gregw]

The East Side residents portrayed in this article are true NIMBYs:

http://www.projo.com/metro/content/projo_2...14.daed024.html

[tigger26]

From the article:

"I don't know if you're ever going to do anything for the white middle class taxpayer."

I'm not sure I even have the right emoticon for that one.

[brick]

From the article:

"I don't know if you're ever going to do anything for the white middle class taxpayer."

I'm not sure I even have the right emoticon for that one.

It was stupidly put and shouldn't have been a contributing quote to the article. I'm not sure why reporters always put the NIMBY quotes into these articles, especially when there are bigger issues at hand. You have a superintendant of schools deciding to close one of the only schools in the city that performs well in order to come up with a quick and easy fix to his problems. And he tried to do it giving no notice to the public or even to the public servants that work in the school.

Even the Adelaide Avenue issues, which are at the head of this issue, are the result of the school board not doing due diligence before making their proposals for the new high school.

[Jerry2]

the epic battle of eagle square should probably have its own thread. It really was a turning point in Providence's major land development process. You can consider it a failure if you want, and you certainly have a right to be wrong, but i think it changed the face of development in Providence forever. and I suspect that i'm not alone in that.

your mileage may vary.

O.K. So you are right in everything you say and everybody else is wrong. Am I one of the "uneducated" ones you spoke of before? The concept of Eagle Square was brilliant. The execution was horrible. It reminds me of a Santino Rice dress from Project Runway. If a closed-in cluttered messy village center with poor lighting and poor signage is your idea of a good execution, I'm scared for the rest of the projects in the city that you will help oversee.

You're position is a valuable one which opposing views are necessary when it comes to design. However, I don't necesssarily agree with some of your points. Let's leave it at that and do away with personal shots. Thanks.

[eltron]

The Eagle Square development was constructed in a way as to appease certain people in the area.

Wow Jerry, your posts continue to be confrontational, uninformed, and just plain wrong.

Without that process, we would be left with RT. 2 in Warwick. when faced with the alternatives, how could you possibly call eagle square a failure? could it be better? absolutely, but look at the what the developer first proposed...and you're blaming the people opposed to the initial proposal for a less than perfect outcome

? thats just foolish. We're talking FELDCO here. Thank God for people that cared and got us the product we have now...

I've been trying to stay outta of this thread, mostly cause I've been busy, but a couple of things:

There is a difference between NIMBY and Not in ANYONE's BackYard. As Greg pointed out, people opposed to a high school at Nathan Bishop are NIMBY's. People opposed to development at India Point are not. technically. Alot of the people folks on this board are frustrated with don't want these things in their backyard or anyone elses backyard. Its just a fundemental difference of thinking. I think at the base, after talking with some of the principles involved in some of the neighborhood groups, that they really want what all of us do - a diverse and healthy urban environment. they just think there is a different way to get there.

Now, some of it is very frustrating to me, and I think is just a general misunderstanding of some of the concepts involved, but most are certainly willing to listen and learn. Thats why I kindof cringed when I heard the initial idea of the YIMBY group...its not a BAD idea, I just don't think it would be productive, and would probably just add more confrontation and acrimony to an already convoluted and wacky process that EVERYONE (developers and neighborhood residents alike) is suspicious of.

The best thing I think is to get out there and try to work with your neighbors and community groups to work on these issues from the inside. might help us ALL out. (BTW-Garris, I've had the exact same exchange lately. I can understand the frustration... )

[gregw]

I think elton is right that the Fox Pointers are not technically NIMBYs. The folks around Nathan Bishop are as well as those opposed to Cape Wind because they put their own private and selfish interests first.

There is a philosophical difference between the India Point proponents and many on this board (myself included).

We, I believe, think that some degree of building is a good idea to add life and activity to an urban park area such as India Point. That doesn't mean no green space or public access, but a range of uses.

The India Point people are not motivated by selfishness but by a (perhaps flawed but well-intentioned) environmentalism. They firmly believe that open and green space is the highest and best possible use of the land in question and are afraid that private interests are going to swamp the public good.

The key is to convince them that expansive open space at India Point will not lead to urban park utopias like Millennium Park in Chicago or Central Park, but to an underused no-man's land as much of India Point is already or to a Station Park in Providence. Nearby buildings will add people to India Point and thereby create a better park, maybe one that is smaller quantitatively but better qualitatively.

[JimmyGreaves]

You have a superintendant of schools deciding to close one of the only schools in the city that performs well in order to come up with a quick and easy fix to his problems.

Are you possibly confusing Nathan Bishop Middle School with Nathaniel Greene Middle School with the latter being the high performer? I'm not trying to justify the school closing with this clarification. Just trying ensure you had the right information.

[brick]

Are you possibly confusing Nathan Bishop Middle School with Nathaniel Greene Middle School with the latter being the high performer? I'm not trying to justify the school closing with this clarification. Just trying ensure you had the right information.

I don't know that it's a high performer but I'm thinking it is one of the better ones. I still think it is kind of lame to re-arrange an entire school, especially one that serves (or could serve) as a neighborhood school, to solve a crowding crisis.

But, the real issue is the new high school. And I'm certainly not knowledgable enough to understand everything going on with those delays.

I'm also not sure that the Nathan Bishop school is going to serve the temporary needs of the high schoolers any better than the spot they are in now. It just seems that the welfare of the students is at the bottom of the priorities of this move, and I think that's wrong for a school system. Without knowing the particulars, though, it's hard to argue the case. Which brings me full circle to why the reporter in this case concentrating on the NIMBY's really did the story a disservice because I would like to know why this snap decision was made and if alternates were explored, etc. oh well.

[Jerry2]

I think development can and should be integrated into the historic fabric of this city. I'm with you on this 100 %. Just because I don't agree with certain people on certain topics doesn't mean I'm being confrontational. As far as being uninformed, I'm not an urban planning professional....but aesthetically speaking, Eagle Square is not attractive, convenient, or safe. I think a few of the buildings should not have been constructed and more surface parking attached to accomodate the residents that can't physically walk to the stores or rely on transportation to get there.

[jencoleslaw]

folks who worked on the eagle square project tried very hard to make it pedestrian friendly. There is a long long history of this battle, and i'm not going to recount it here in verse, but to blame the neighbors, and the artists and the preservationists and the new urbanists for the crappy parking lot design of this finished project is misdirected. Many of us were very excited about a grocery store, and other services down there, we just wanted it to be a true URBAN development that folks could safely walk to, not a suburban development with acres of parking (like on North Main Street), which the original plan was. This was truly a case of the neighbors wanting something urban, with some height even! in their back yard.

And i will thank you not to disparage the work I do on the City Plan Commission (a seat appointed by the mayor) until you've been to a meeting or two and can find fault (ie, not in line with the comprehensive plan and the development review regulations) with any of my decisions.

[Recchia]

I'll never understand the reasoning behind facing the Dunkin Donuts/Subway/Popeye building in Eagle Square to the parking lot instead of the street.

[runawayjim]

I'll never understand the reasoning behind facing the Dunkin Donuts/Subway/Popeye building in Eagle Square to the parking lot instead of the street.

i'll never understand the reasoning behind the design of that parking lot period.

i swear it's hands down the worst parking lot to drive through.