PROPOSED: WATERFRONT PARK

[basachs]

The entire 195 relocation project is freeing up 33 acres of land. That's downtown, Fox Point, and the Jewelry District..

Yes and the park is 8 of those 33.

Not that I dont agree with some of what you say. Maintenance of these is my biggest issue. Between the 6.5 million earmarked for the botanical gardens at RWP and the 4.5 million for this park, thats 11 million dollars that could be used to maintain and upgrade the park infrastructure we already have! Get our house in order before adding on that extension.

whats better? Having a small network of parks that are in excellent, maintained condition? Or a somewhat larger network of parks that are in disarray? I am not against this park, just leery when I look at the city's track record in maintaining anything.

[Citydweller]

That doesn't sound all that public to me. In fact it just sounds like a clever way not to pay an architectural firm for the design. Not that it's a bad idea, mind you, just an interesting phrasing.

This is actually an outrage. To get lots of free ideas from professionals for the possible reward of $3000 (which doesn't cover much in most offices) is pathetic. This is a project that is supposed to be the living room of Providence and costs milions to build. Why so cheap for the design? Wouldn't it be better to hire a team (like Duany) and have a charrette that engages the public and developers and politicians, etc. to come up with the most skilled, best design?

Why are we aiming so low?

[runawayjim]

This is actually an outrage. To get lots of free ideas from professionals for the possible reward of $3000 (which doesn't cover much in most offices) is pathetic. This is a project that is supposed to be the living room of Providence and costs milions to build. Why so cheap for the design? Wouldn't it be better to hire a team (like Duany) and have a charrette that engages the public and developers and politicians, etc. to come up with the most skilled, best design?

Why are we aiming so low?

i think it's meant to bring professionals forward to volunteer their time because they care, not because they want the money.

[Cotuit]

4.5 million for this park

The $4.5million for this park is federal funds secured through RIDoT. The funds for future maintenance by the city will be an issue, but we have 6 years to work that out.

It's pretty damn amazing that we are getting another park space through federal highway dollars. What other highways in the area need moving?

[Cotuit]

I like that they claim it is open to "the public" but then stipulate that you need a licensed architect to participate. That doesn't sound all that public to me. In fact it just sounds like a clever way not to pay an architectural firm for the design. Not that it's a bad idea, mind you, just an interesting phrasing.

There needs to be a professional to be able to deal with things like where the utilities are undergroung and to price out the various design ideas. Anyone can get some colored pencils and design a park, but the city rightly does not want to be flooded with designs that aren't feesible.

As for it being a way to get a free designer, maybe so, but I agree with runawayjim, I think the point is the designer should want to do this for the city, and having your name (or your firm's name) attached to this park will be worth a lot of free publicity for the winning team.

How much can the public actually be involved in this process if they don't have the required licensing? Well that depends on how much input people who do want to have in the process. The winning design is not the design that will be built, it will be the launchpad for a public input phase.

[Cotuit]

6.5 million earmarked for the botanical gardens at RWP

From the ProJo:

City officials have said they have an estimated $6.53 million in federal, state and city bond money and grants, as well as grants from the Champlin Foundations.

Cicilline has said that he foresees the botanical center becoming largely self-sufficient, with admission fees, concessions and money generated from rental fees for event and wedding space.

The Parks Department is raising funds from donors that is earmarked for the Botanical Center, $6.5million is not all coming from the city's coffers. The Botanical Center will generate it's own income. Operation of the Botanical Center will depend heavily on volunteers as well. The Botanical Center was also scaled back by the Cicilline administration from it's original $15million price tag because it was recognized that the city is not exactly flush with cash.

[CtownMikey]

Also, Thom, I'm very interested in finding out if the newly opened real estate from the 195 relo has been marketed to developers from outside the area? Has it been touted to companies to potentially construct new headquarters? Or is the city just going to give it all to non-profits and build a huge, un-maintained, white elephant park?

Signed..

Jerry...frustrated Providence taxpayer

I'm sure the city will give the remaining acres to non-profits and brown/risd/jwu who if i'm correct do not pay property taxes. The city doesnt need anymore tax dollars... why would they promote it to companies that could benefit us more????? not

Honestly.. I hate that part of your post. Why assume that this park and the extra land will be developed entirely wrong, when we really havent been given an opportunity, as a city, like this in a very long time?

I had not explored downtown until I was 18 really.. (1

[Cotuit]

I'm very interested in finding out if the newly opened real estate from the 195 relo has been marketed to developers from outside the area?

I don't think it's officially been marketed to anyone yet. The General Assembly still needs to pass legislation which will transfer the redevelopment duties from RIDoT to the city.

[basachs]

From the ProJo:

City officials have said they have an estimated $6.53 million in federal, state and city bond money and grants, as well as grants from the Champlin Foundations.

Cicilline has said that he foresees the botanical center becoming largely self-sufficient, with admission fees, concessions and money generated from rental fees for event and wedding space.

The Parks Department is raising funds from donors that is earmarked for the Botanical Center, $6.5million is not all coming from the city's coffers. The Botanical Center will generate it's own income. Operation of the Botanical Center will depend heavily on volunteers as well. The Botanical Center was also scaled back by the Cicilline administration from it's original $15million price tag because it was recognized that the city is not exactly flush with cash.

Ok, I'll admit when I am wrong. So the majority of money is not coming from the City. Thats good, and I am happy about that. Its a sore spot with me, the way the city has completely failed to take care of its existing park infrastructure. To talk about the importance of parks, and yet not do anything proactive with regards to the parks is just sickening.

It sure seems like a lot of press releases are for these new ventures and nothing is being spoken about or actually done for our existing parks.

[Cotuit]

Its a sore spot with me, the way the city has completely failed to take care of its existing park infrastructure.

I'm not shy about calling the Parks Department out when there are obvious failures, such as the grafitti in Waterplace (there's a WaterFire on the 13th, it'll sure be embarassing if that is not remedied by then), but I am willing to give the Parks Department the benefit of the doubt for a while longer. Decades of neglect won't right themselves overnight, and there needs to be some creative thinking going into the best way to fund the parks. The city is in a funding crisis still and schools, public safety, and basic infrastructure will continue to have to come before parks, so the Parks Department needs to find ways to fund itself outside of the city's regular revenue streams. Now if we don't see some initiatives coming out of the Parks Department soon to find creative ways to fund itself (I'm not saying it has to be self sufficient, but we're not going to get anymore than the bare minimum if other monies aren't found) then I will begin to lose faith.

The reality is that every park in the city individually needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds to bring them up to the level that a first rate city should expect. In my neighborhood Garibaldi Park needs to be re-sodded, planting beds need to be cleared and planted, trees need to be pruned, fences need to be repaired, park benches need to be repaired, unsightly trashbins need to be upgraded, pathways need to be patched... Every park in the city is in near the same state or worse.

[Citydweller]

As for it being a way to get a free designer, maybe so, but I agree with runawayjim, I think the point is the designer should want to do this for the city, and having your name (or your firm's name) attached to this park will be worth a lot of free publicity for the winning team.

I care about this city, but I donate a lot of time to the Mississippi rebuilding, so I can't continue to work for free everywhere. Also, any firm worth it's salt doesn't need free publicity. And...this type of competition tends to skew towards the 'big idea' types of solutions that are not as nuanced as a city park needs to be. Most competitions that have low payoffs at least have the reward of negotiating for the actual job.

How much can the public actually be involved in this process if they don't have the required licensing? Well that depends on how much input people who do want to have in the process. The winning design is not the design that will be built, it will be the launchpad for a public input phase.

This is why not many experienced professionals that will put in significant time for the publicity of a design that will not be built and they have no control over, and which the public will critisize. Often the young, inexperienced designers are the ones that put in their own time after work - not the way to get the best work.

[xine]

There needs to be a professional to be able to deal with things like where the utilities are undergroung and to price out the various design ideas. Anyone can get some colored pencils and design a park, but the city rightly does not want to be flooded with designs that aren't feesible.

As for it being a way to get a free designer, maybe so, but I agree with runawayjim, I think the point is the designer should want to do this for the city, and having your name (or your firm's name) attached to this park will be worth a lot of free publicity for the winning team.

How much can the public actually be involved in this process if they don't have the required licensing? Well that depends on how much input people who do want to have in the process. The winning design is not the design that will be built, it will be the launchpad for a public input phase.

It is a bit disappointing that the "prizes" are so insignificant - It's a real disincentive for professionals to participate since it will easily cost upwards of $40,000 in unpaid labor to do this right. That's a lot of cash!

I love that it's a public competition rather than cronyism being used to select a designer, but a lot of very talented professionals are very very busy and won't be able pass up paying work in exchange for fame and the people's ovation forever.

In any case, much of the discussion above has been about the use of the park as a festival gathering space - but the rules say you can't design a space that allows more than 300 people to gather. That's not very many people at all! It seems the intention is to prohibit large gatherings - is this in response to the JD Neighborhood Association?

[runawayjim]

It is a bit disappointing that the "prizes" are so insignificant - It's a real disincentive for professionals to participate since it will easily cost upwards of $40,000 in unpaid labor to do this right. That's a lot of cash!

I love that it's a public competition rather than cronyism being used to select a designer, but a lot of very talented professionals are very very busy and won't be able pass up paying work in exchange for fame and the people's ovation forever.

In any case, much of the discussion above has been about the use of the park as a festival gathering space - but the rules say you can't design a space that allows more than 300 people to gather. That's not very many people at all! It seems the intention is to prohibit large gatherings - is this in response to the JD Neighborhood Association?

i don't see a big company or a professional with a lot of work taking this up. i see a professional just getting started or one that has a real passion for the city of providence taking it up. i also see it being more of a group (like the JDA or UP) going up to a professional with their ideas and asking for help, or (the flip side) a starting professional going to one of those groups and offering to help. it doesn't become about the money, it becomes about the passion. a professional or a firm that already has a lot of work obviously has their name out there. one who just graduated or is just getting started doesn't and could use something like this to really get their name out there.

300 people isn't a lot, but the space isn't huge either. if one side of the park were the full 8 acres, then yes, it would make sense to have it more. i also have a feeling they want this gathering area to only be a portion of the park, allowing those not interested in the gathering to enjoy the park while there are events taking place. i'm thinking sort of like central park's summer stage, where it's a closed off area, only i don't see this area being closed off like that, but more of a remote area where the gathering can take place independent of whatever else is going on in the park.

[Thom]

This is going to be the biggest waste of tax dollars this city has seen in awhile. Even if this park can obtain federal funds or from private donations, it is the absolute worst way to develop 33 acres of prime real estate. The aesthetics of a riverfront park are pleasing, but who will use this park? Providence has already demonstrated that it cannot handle basic maintenance in the parks it already maintains...or doesn't for that matter. Graffiti and overflowing trashbins spewing trash in the river and all over the mulch is disgusting and unacceptable.Waterplace is disgusting! It's embarrassing to look in the water @ low tide and see carriages, tires, and plastic bags. There needs to be some collaboration to get Waterplace and the extended riverwalk maintained? Is there anybody working on this? Thom, are you out there? Also, Thom, I'm very interested in finding out if the newly opened real estate from the 195 relo has been marketed to developers from outside the area? Has it been touted to companies to potentially construct new headquarters? Or is the city just going to give it all to non-profits and build a huge, un-maintained, white elephant park?

Signed..

Jerry...frustrated Providence taxpayer

I try hard not to give views when I post; I want to share what information that I can and hear what people are saying. That may be difficult in responding to many of the comments that have been made.

The proposal for a design competition for the parks on the river banks was my idea. The city negotiated the parks land though the EIS in the mid 90's. The biggest gripe that we have dealt with has been from designers that only one view has been reflected in all that has been built in Providnece. I asked RIDOT to consider the competition so that others, and there are many firms that are very interested in this competition, could have a chance at designing what is built at the parks. The prizes are small because RIDOT dollars can't be used for prizes and the city doesn't have the money. We are hoping to get RIDOT to hire the designer of the selected proposal.

Maintenance is and always will be an issue. The Park's Department has gotten much better. Part of the problem we face is that many of the new parks were designed with specialty materials that are hard to maintain and replace. In fact, with what we know today, we wouldn't build the WaterPlace basin as it was constructed. Less then 5 years after it openned we spent $1.8 million dredging the basin and river. We are now facing another dredging estimated around $2 million. Without help, the city will always struggle to maintian the parks. In my neighborhood, when we take my sons to little league practice and games, my wife and I walk around the park picking up trash. We've been doing this for five years now and other families have joined in. It's amazing to watch the reaction of the usual litterers when then see what we are doing. They often jump in and help. As owners of the city parks, all of us have a responsbility. That responsibility may be as simple as bugging the Park's Department when the trash cans are full or just picking up trash and putting it into the nearest trash barrel. Or it could involve joining the river clean up that happens every Earth Day and pulling the grocery carts out of the river. The city will do the best it can with its limited resources and staff; it will work to form partnerships with developers to have parks cleaned. But we can't do it all, we need your help.

As to the 195 land, the land must be sold for fair market value. How the land will be sold has not yet been finalized; we hope that will happen this year. The city's goal is to have the land sold to for profit developers and to increase the city's tax base. No efforts have yet been made to market the land, however, we are mapping all constraints to development and are feilding interest monthly from both in and out of state developers. We have been and will continue to discourage Brown from this area unless they commit to paying full property taxes. J&W has used its legislative connections to have first rights to about 2 acres of land along I-95. In exchange for that first right they had to commit to paying full property taxes. Additionally, we have reached tenative agreement with them that they will develop buildings that meet the city plans of ground floor retail, etc spelled out in the Sasaki Plan. We have also asked them to take ownership of and therefore maintenance responsibility for the park lands developed around Chestnut Circle.

AS for the new park, I beleive that it will be an asset that will help raise property values and spur development.

[Cotuit]

The city will do the best it can with its limited resources and staff; it will work to form partnerships with developers to have parks cleaned.

In one of the early articles about the Waterplace condos, one of their representatives was quoted as saying something to the effect that they would be stewards of Waterplace (the park) specifics on that were never spelled out. Do you know if the city/Parks Department have made any arrangements for Waterplace Park with Waterplace and GTECH?

[Thom]

In one of the early articles about the Waterplace condos, one of their representatives was quoted as saying something to the effect that they would be stewards of Waterplace (the park) specifics on that were never spelled out. Do you know if the city/Parks Department have made any arrangements for Waterplace Park with Waterplace and GTECH?

It is my understanding that an agreemnt has been reached with both GTech and Intercontinental on maintenance of the park area around WaterPlace. I'll see if I can get details.

[Cotuit]

Yes! A well designed pedestrian bridge could be as much of a draw for this area as the park, and serve as a kind of landmark for the city. Though I do think the current bridge supports look too high for a pedestrian bridge.

I think when discussing reusing the piers, that may mean the concrete bases at the waterline. If you've been under the 195 bridge recently, you'll see the vertical sections are on their last legs (if you will), and probably can't/shouldn't be reused. Though the bridge, at least at the mid point, should be at least as high as the Point Street Bridge to allow for navigation upstream.

It is my understanding that an agreemnt has been reached with both GTech and Intercontinental on maintenance of the park area around WaterPlace. I'll see if I can get details.

That's good to hear, exactly the kind of creative financing I hope to see the Parks Department strive for.

[brick]

The proposal for a design competition for the parks on the river banks was my idea. The city negotiated the parks land though the EIS in the mid 90's. The biggest gripe that we have dealt with has been from designers that only one view has been reflected in all that has been built in Providnece. I asked RIDOT to consider the competition so that others, and there are many firms that are very interested in this competition, could have a chance at designing what is built at the parks. The prizes are small because RIDOT dollars can't be used for prizes and the city doesn't have the money. We are hoping to get RIDOT to hire the designer of the selected proposal.

Thom,

I certainly understand the reasoning behind the design competition and my post was merely my charming cynical NE way of pointing out something I thought was funny.

Still, I do hope that there is another incentive for the designers because there really is a lot of work involved and if the real $$$ go to a RIDOT cronie after someone put a lot of effort into winning the contest, then I think that would be a shame.

Of course, this leads to the difficulty of the whole thing where if you just promise the winning team the bid, then you might find out later that they lack the technical know-how or resources to actually get the design through the approval stage and into construction.

I'm curious what causes the need for dredging in Waterplace so often, but that is obviously off-topic. I wonder if there is a less expensive way to deal with the silt than constant dredging.

[PVDJack]

I try hard not to give views when I post; I want to share what information that I can and hear what people are saying. That may be difficult in responding to many of the comments that have been made.

The proposal for a design competition for the parks on the river banks was my idea. The city negotiated the parks land though the EIS in the mid 90's. The biggest gripe that we have dealt with has been from designers that only one view has been reflected in all that has been built in Providnece. I asked RIDOT to consider the competition so that others, and there are many firms that are very interested in this competition, could have a chance at designing what is built at the parks. The prizes are small because RIDOT dollars can't be used for prizes and the city doesn't have the money. We are hoping to get RIDOT to hire the designer of the selected proposal.

Maintenance is and always will be an issue. The Park's Department has gotten much better. Part of the problem we face is that many of the new parks were designed with specialty materials that are hard to maintain and replace. In fact, with what we know today, we wouldn't build the WaterPlace basin as it was constructed. Less then 5 years after it openned we spent $1.8 million dredging the basin and river. We are now facing another dredging estimated around $2 million. Without help, the city will always struggle to maintian the parks. In my neighborhood, when we take my sons to little league practice and games, my wife and I walk around the park picking up trash. We've been doing this for five years now and other families have joined in. It's amazing to watch the reaction of the usual litterers when then see what we are doing. They often jump in and help. As owners of the city parks, all of us have a responsbility. That responsibility may be as simple as bugging the Park's Department when the trash cans are full or just picking up trash and putting it into the nearest trash barrel. Or it could involve joining the river clean up that happens every Earth Day and pulling the grocery carts out of the river. The city will do the best it can with its limited resources and staff; it will work to form partnerships with developers to have parks cleaned. But we can't do it all, we need your help.

As to the 195 land, the land must be sold for fair market value. How the land will be sold has not yet been finalized; we hope that will happen this year. The city's goal is to have the land sold to for profit developers and to increase the city's tax base. No efforts have yet been made to market the land, however, we are mapping all constraints to development and are feilding interest monthly from both in and out of state developers. We have been and will continue to discourage Brown from this area unless they commit to paying full property taxes. J&W has used its legislative connections to have first rights to about 2 acres of land along I-95. In exchange for that first right they had to commit to paying full property taxes. Additionally, we have reached tenative agreement with them that they will develop buildings that meet the city plans of ground floor retail, etc spelled out in the Sasaki Plan. We have also asked them to take ownership of and therefore maintenance responsibility for the park lands developed around Chestnut Circle.

AS for the new park, I beleive that it will be an asset that will help raise property values and spur development.

Thom, thanks for the informative post. I think that your approach with the new park makes a lot of sense.

[xine]

The prizes are small because RIDOT dollars can't be used for prizes and the city doesn't have the money. We are hoping to get RIDOT to hire the designer of the selected proposal.

That would be fantastic - I think if you could get RIDOT to at least publicly state a vague intention to hire the winning designer to complete the work, that would go a long way to boost participation.

RIDOT could still retain the right to reject the winner if they weren't technically competent, or at least pair them with a civil engineer or another firm to act as "executive".

Overall, the competition is a great idea - it will be nice to see the design for such an important part of the city selected on merit!

[Citydweller]

The prizes are small because RIDOT dollars can't be used for prizes and the city doesn't have the money. We are hoping to get RIDOT to hire the designer of the selected proposal.

AS for the new park, I beleive that it will be an asset that will help raise property values and spur development.

Where is the participation by developers/private sector/ institutions/ foundations? Why can't additional money be found for a more realistic competition? Why do designers always have to be the ones who contribute for the public good?

Also, I still feel that a competition may be a way of getting a lot of ideas, but it tends towards the 'Hail Mary" approach to getting a 'winning design' that may not address the nuanced design of a multi-use public park.

[runawayjim]

Where is the participation by developers/private sector/ institutions/ foundations? Why can't additional money be found for a more realistic competition? Why do designers always have to be the ones who contribute for the public good?

Also, I still feel that a competition may be a way of getting a lot of ideas, but it tends towards the 'Hail Mary" approach to getting a 'winning design' that may not address the nuanced design of a multi-use public park.

i doubt the committee will choose a design that doesn't incorporate everything they're looking for. i also doubt they'll end the competition if they haven't received a submission that meets their guidelines or ideals.

the city is trying to make this a park for the residents by the residents. it requires professional participation because of the underground utilities and other things that the average joe will not take into account. participation by developers and the private sector will steer the design to what they want as opposed to what the city and residents want. do you really think a developer or company will blindly donate money without having their hands mucking around in the judging process?

[Citydweller]

i doubt the committee will choose a design that doesn't incorporate everything they're looking for. i also doubt they'll end the competition if they haven't received a submission that meets their guidelines or ideals.

the city is trying to make this a park for the residents by the residents. it requires professional participation because of the underground utilities and other things that the average joe will not take into account. participation by developers and the private sector will steer the design to what they want as opposed to what the city and residents want. do you really think a developer or company will blindly donate money without having their hands mucking around in the judging process?

The participation by institutions and developers could be through funding only - the jury is already set.

And if you think that committees always chose wisely, just look at the mess of the World Trade Center - big ideas selected by committee that didn't really respond to the complexities of the site and the program.

[runawayjim]

The participation by institutions and developers could be through funding only - the jury is already set.

And if you think that committees always chose wisely, just look at the mess of the World Trade Center - big ideas selected by committee that didn't really respond to the complexities of the site and the program.

i never said committees always choose wisely, but this committee will be strongly scrutinized by the JDA because they have very strong ideas of what they want to see there.

[Citydweller]

i never said committees always choose wisely, but this committee will be strongly scrutinized by the JDA because they have very strong ideas of what they want to see there.

I'm sorry that I'm sounding so grumpy and negative about this - it's just that I would very much like to work on this, but I doubt I will be able to.