Allens Ave. Waterfront Development

[Cotuit]

Forum looks anew at city waterfront. It is the second in a series of "visioning exercises" meant to ignite discussion about the future of Providence. [ProJo.com]

[Frankie811]

For example, if there's plan mapped out for the Route 195 land, where is it?

This is what I want to know. Was this done is secracy? Last I heard, the city and state was fighting over who had authority and control over this land.

[Cotuit]

For example, if there's plan mapped out for the Route 195 land, where is it?

This is what I want to know. Was this done is secracy? Last I heard, the city and state was fighting over who had authority and control over this land.

In the article, Thom Deller is quoted as saying there were public meetings about this years ago (probably before I moved here). Things like street layout, which the neighbourhood meetings would have addressed, are different than who takes ownership and development rights of the resulting parcels.

I actually have a map of the proposed layout of the streets.

[riari]

At the PPS waterfront forum, Bill Struever said that SBER is planning to put a 7-or-8-screen art cinema in the south st. station/heritage harbor bldg. Anybody know anything else about that? Who would be the operator, etc?

[Thom]

Saturday's Forum raised a lot of issues worthy of consideration and yesterday's article raised concerns that people don't understand what is happening. In 1989 when RIDOT proposed rebuilding 195 in place, the city opposed the plan. It tooks us almost two years to get RIDOT to look at the potential of relocating 195 and then almost three years through the EIS process to convince them that the relocation made sense. Through that process, a very public process, we debated what would happen with the land when the high way was relocated and agreed on a plan. That plan was codified in the EIS and in the 1994 amendments to the city's zoning ordinance. From 1995 until 2000 we waited for money. The project is now moving full steam and will be done before we realize it. The bridge is to be raised this June or July (party on the hurricane barrier), the bridge is openned to traffic (I beleive east bound) late 2006 early 2007. The full highway is openned in 2009. The old roadway is demolished and the city streets, parks and development parcels are built and ready for development by 2012.

With this said, there is still some flexibility in what will happen. The city is still debating with RIDOT the open space and its design. In the EIS there are requirements for certain amounts of open space on the east and west side of the river. WE have discovered that the plans for the west side of the river are short by about 4 acres. As a result, we are asking RIDOT to increase the size of the park along the river in the lines of what was proposed by Sasaki. WE are also working very closely with RIDOT to review and approve the design of the public realm. We hope to work out a compromise with RIDOT that the mayor will announce shortly.

As far as zoning the new parels, there are few changes that need to be made. The biggest change will be how we handle design review.

All of this was done in a very public arena over a four year period. But, because it was done so long ago, people forget.

AS for the land, the city and the state are not fighting about it, we are trying to design a process that will insure that the land gets develop and doesn't sit vacant for years as gravel lots. There exists a very detailed and cumbersome process for the sale of the land. The state proposed and the city agreed to a concept that would have a city/state commission control the sale of the land if the legislature approves the bill. If not approved, we are working on a plan 'B' to insure that development happens.

As a result of Saturday's meeting, two things are happening The Planning Department is preparing a "Fact Book" that will detail the plans, time frame and issues still open for debate. Second, we have asked (actually we asked several months ago) RIDOT to hold an informational meeting on the project and its status. Hopefully, this will happen in May.

As far as Struever's comments on Saturday, we have a preliminary desing concept for the South Street Station from Struever and there are no movie theaters in it. Doesn't mean the plan hasn't changed. Our last discussions with Struever had applications for development approval submitted in June 06.

Oh yeah, I think the 195 plan for reuse is on the planning department's web page. I'll have to check and if it isn't there get it added.

[prov4now]

Saturday's Forum raised a lot of issues worthy of consideration and yesterday's article raised concerns that people don't understand what is happening.

What are the immediate possibilities of public involvement within the relocation of 195 plan? As a concerned resident of the East Side, what options do I have to make my voice heard?

[Garris]

What are the immediate possibilities of public involvement within the relocation of 195 plan? As a concerned resident of the East Side, what options do I have to make my voice heard?

Just out of curiosity, what issues do you have regarding 195 relocation?

- Garris

PS: Noting this is your first post, welcome to UP Providence!

[prov4now]

Just out of curiosity, what issues do you have regarding 195 relocation?

I am concerned as to the vagueness of the Sasaki Plan and the possibility of Providence's institutions becoming too large of players in the equation (notably Brown's desire to build a Medical School campus). My understanding of the Sasaki Plan is that is has not yet been implemented. However, I do not know enough about it and I would like to know what avenues are available to me, or who I should be speaking to.

ps. Thanks for the welcome