Your day with dynamite

[eltron]

No offense, but you're not seriously comparing development in Providence with development in Chicago?

As great as Chicago is, I think you might be giving them a little too much credit. As recently as the early '90's huge swaths of the city, Providence-sized swaths of the city, were bathed in crime and blight. Chicago public housing was infamous as the worst of the worst, and its big-city problems made Providence's look like, well, little-city problems. They turned things around, just like Providence is turning things around. I think the comparison, while not direct, is certainly valid.

I don't know how productive comparing skylines really is...

[Lone Ranger]

I don't know how productive comparing skylines really is...

I knew that was coming.

But essentially, as an indicator of the their economic clout relative to ours, and especially of their demand for development relative to ours, I should think comparing skylines would be all the comparison necessary between the two. Is it scientific? No.

[jencoleslaw]

I think that we can be a lot stricter with things like variances and we can actually require things from developers that we currently do not require because of some sort of paranoia that developers will simply go elsewhere. When i asked about variances with the woman i was meeting with in Chicago (she manages The Mayor's Green Initiative) she looked at me like i just offered her crack. She said "we don't give out any, unless it is to a non profit--for profit developers follow the zoning code." The city of chicago made a committment to the environment in 1989 and they believe that that commitment is what has helped drive the economic development in downtown. Chicago put a green roof on their half of the city hall building so that they could then require developers to do the same. Chicago puts its money where its mouth is and for that i have boatloads of respect. We could learn a lot from Chicago regardless of how big it is and how small we are. Good practices are good practices.

[Cotuit]

I would use my dynamite to blow up our current zoning regulations. Then perhaps we could rewrite them and be more like Chicago.

[Lone Ranger]

and we can actually require things from developers that we currently do not require because of some sort of paranoia that developers will simply go elsewhere.

Again, Chicago has proven to be one of the most develop-able places in the world. We aren't. Chicago, in their situation, can far better afford to regulate strictly than we can in ours.

Developers are paying us a lot more attention these days than they did in the past, but we're not by any means in a position where we can assume that the developers will continue to pound on our doors come hell or high water. And I should think that the recent dismay over the proposed end to the Historic Tax Credit program would be proof enough of that. We're in a position where we still need to offer incentives. On the contrary, Chicago is in a position where they can make demands at will. Hooray for them.

[Garris]

As great as Chicago is, I think you might be giving them a little too much credit. As recently as the early '90's huge swaths of the city, Providence-sized swaths of the city, were bathed in crime and blight. Chicago public housing was infamous as the worst of the worst, and its big-city problems made Providence's look like, well, little-city problems. They turned things around, just like Providence is turning things around. I think the comparison, while not direct, is certainly valid.

Well, as recently as now there are still large, Providence-sized swaths of crime and blight... They've made some progress with this (and their public housing) over the years as many cities have, but it's a looong way from "mission accomplished" in the Windy City...

Chicago has recently had one of the most explosive downtown residental building booms of any American city over the last 50 years. The "gold coast" Northern shore is exploding, so the city may have a bit more leverage over developers than we have here. That Chicago explosion has been going on since at least the late 90's, so they are a bit ahead of us...

Also, as a challenge to Jen, while Chicago is wonderful (but I think a tad overrated), in my opinion many of the newish-residential and commerical tower development I've seen in the city has been hardly inspirational. Lots of big, glass boxes with lots of plazas and glass fronting the streetscape that could be in any major American city. And the "gold coast" just looks like a massive conglomeration of balconies everywhere, like 30 Parcel 12's all jammed together. Lets not talk about what they did to Soldier Field...

Can anyone point out their favorites of the new Chicago developments?

- Garris

[eltron]

Again, Chicago has proven to be one of the most develop-able places in the world. We aren't. Chicago, in their situation, can far better afford to regulate strictly than we can in ours.

Developers are paying us a lot more attention these days than they did in the past, but we're not by any means in a position where we can assume that the developers will continue to pound on our doors come hell or high water. And I should think that the recent dismay over the proposed end to the Historic Tax Credit program would be proof enough of that. We're in a position where we still need to offer incentives. On the contrary, Chicago is in a position where they can make demands at will. Hooray for them.

I agree with you to an extent, but I think alot of the thinking is a little too broad. Development is the most local of all industries, and there are lots of people either from here or very much invested here who will see opportunity regardless of the regulatory climate. Again, these guys and gals aren't giving up something for nothin. Even if the big national developers decided to go somewhere else, there are people around looking to invest, and invest locally.

Plus, you plan for the future, not the past. I think everyone here can safely say Providence is not sliding back down into the "pre-renaissance" years.

I agree with Cotuit though, the current zoning can use a stick a dynamite...

[Lone Ranger]

I agree with Cotuit though, the current zoning can use a stick a dynamite...

For the record, I'm not disputing that ...

[jencoleslaw]

Developers are paying us a lot more attention these days than they did in the past, but we're not by any means in a position where we can assume that the developers will continue to pound on our doors come hell or high water. And I should think that the recent dismay over the proposed end to the Historic Tax Credit program would be proof enough of that. We're in a position where we still need to offer incentives. On the contrary, Chicago is in a position where they can make demands at will. Hooray for them.

i do not believe that we need to be as accomodating as we are. I will NEVER believe that until i start seeing otherwise. and not to be confrontative, but do you really, honestly believe that in light of the news of the potential demise of the Historic Tax Credit Program, that developers would say "well, we'll do the work anyway?" I mean, come on...i got a nice bridge in jamestown to sell ya.

[Carter711]

Lets not talk about what they did to Soldier Field...

Good point. When people started referring to it as "the mistake by the lake" 5 seconds after it was finished, well that's a pretty good sign they screwed up.

[Lone Ranger]

and not to be confrontative, but do you really, honestly believe that in light of the news of the potential demise of the Historic Tax Credit Program, that developers would say "well, we'll do the work anyway?" I mean, come on...i got a nice bridge in jamestown to sell ya.

I think you're confused. Read these two sentences again:

And I should think that the recent dismay over the proposed end to the Historic Tax Credit program would be proof enough of that. We're in a position where we still need to offer incentives.

As far as I can tell, you & I are in agreement there. You seem to think that the HTC's are necessary, yes? Well, I also think the HTC's are necessary -- that is, useful tools for helping us attract developers to work on projects that are otherwise unfeasible because of rehab costs.

You seem to be under the impression that I said I expect some sort of goodwill from developers. I didn't. And I don't.

[eltron]

I think you're confused. Read these two sentences again:

As far as I can tell, you & I are in agreement there. You seem to think that the HTC's are necessary, yes? Well, I also think the HTC's are necessary -- that is, useful tools for helping us attract developers to work on projects that are otherwise unfeasible because of rehab costs.

You seem to be under the impression that I said I expect some sort of goodwill from developers. I didn't. And I don't.

I think there is some confusion here...

from MY argument, the historic credit is only helping part of the equation - namely mill conversions and affordable housing (and the oddball, Temple of Junerism project). Historic tax credits had nothing to do with OneTen, Waterplace, Westin, The Mall, and others, and these are the biggest of the projects.

And Paolino seems to be seeing plenty of profit by demolishing historic properties that qualify for the credit and developing crap.

For the record, I LIKE the new Soldier's Field. Snazzy!

[Dan]

For the record, I LIKE the new Soldier's Field. Snazzy!

I don't know much about Soldier Field. Anyone want to talk about why it was a mistake?

Should they have built a new stadium from scratch or did many believe the finished product left a lot to be desired? What happened?

[jencoleslaw]

I think you're confused. Read these two sentences again:

As far as I can tell, you & I are in agreement there. You seem to think that the HTC's are necessary, yes? Well, I also think the HTC's are necessary -- that is, useful tools for helping us attract developers to work on projects that are otherwise unfeasible because of rehab costs.

You seem to be under the impression that I said I expect some sort of goodwill from developers. I didn't. And I don't.

i don't think i am confused, about this anyway.

Your point that we have to continue to dangle carrots and fruit baskets to developers in order to get them to stay is one that i don't agree with. I was mentioning the HTC because of course developers are going to complain that without them they could take their satchels of cash and go elsewhere. What else would they say?

I agree wholeheartedly that the HTCs do a lot of good and i certainly support them because they do require things of developers (ie., not knocking down buildings and the like) but to give developers carte blanche in zoning, setting up all kinds of other tax incentives without getting anything real back, and taking very casual reads of the comp plan via the CPC is what i think we need to stop doing in order to get quality development that supports the longterm future of providence.

My point that Chicago is stricter and require more environmental details (and that being a good thing that we could try now and then) still stands. As usual, your mileage may vary.

[magoldbe]

I'll have to blow up the strip mall on the corner of Thayer and Waterman.

That'd be too bad, since that's one of the only buildings on Thayer that is owned by a fair, friendly, equitable landlord (or so say the people who work at Foreign Affair). True, it's not the prettiest thing. Just wait for its owner to die and I'm sure they'll level it to build a panera or something.

Speaking of blowing up malls, my vote goes to Providence Place.

Is it true that they got a TIF-like concession that gets them out of paying sales tax for a period of time, but that they still charge the sales tax from people who shop there?

[eltron]

i don't think i am confused, about this anyway.

Your point that we have to continue to dangle carrots and fruit baskets to developers in order to get them to stay is one that i don't agree with. I was mentioning the HTC because of course developers are going to complain that without them they could take their satchels of cash and go elsewhere. What else would they say?

I agree wholeheartedly that the HTCs do a lot of good and i certainly support them because they do require things of developers (ie., not knocking down buildings and the like) but to give developers carte blanche in zoning, setting up all kinds of other tax incentives without getting anything real back, and taking very casual reads of the comp plan via the CPC is what i think we need to stop doing in order to get quality development that supports the longterm future of providence.

My point that Chicago is stricter and require more environmental details (and that being a good thing that we could try now and then) still stands. As usual, your mileage may vary.

ah, much clearer. and obviously, I agree...

[Recchia]

Speaking of blowing up malls, my vote goes to Providence Place.

Care to explain?

[magoldbe]

Care to explain?

ok, keep in mind, this is fantasy land, and I would never actually want to actually blow up the mall. that would be wrong.

but, for starters, it's ugly. it doesn't have any stores that I care to shop in. if it contains any locally-owned businesses, I have yet to notice one... unless Forever 21 is based in warwick. who knows....

It brings in car traffic, diverts business away from downtown shop owners, boxes-in window-shoppers who ought to be strolling down city streets, doesn't contribute to the city through paying sales tax, I could go on...

giant malls in cities are just silly. why build a mall when downtown is full of store-fronts?

in my home-town, philadelphia, there's a gigantic mall downtown called the gallery that was all flashy and shiny when they first built it, but has since gone completely to seed, now that people have reverted to doing their shopping out in the fresh air, door-to-door, old-fashion style along the city's big, lovely promenades.

It just seems to me that as this "new urbanism" thing picks up steam, more and more people are doing their darndest to turn our cities into bizarro high-density suburbs complete with malls and copious parking. go figure.

[AriPVD]

It just seems to me that as this "new urbanism" thing picks up steam, more and more people are doing their darndest to turn our cities into bizarro high-density suburbs complete with malls and copious parking. go figure.

That is not at all the objective of New Urbanism, although sometimes unfortunately the byproduct. Read the Charter online if you want to know what New Urbanism is meant to stand for. http://cnu.org/aboutcnu/index.cfm?formAction=charter

[Recchia]

ok, keep in mind, this is fantasy land, and I would never actually want to actually blow up the mall. that would be wrong.

but, for starters, it's ugly. it doesn't have any stores that I care to shop in. if it contains any locally-owned businesses, I have yet to notice one... unless Forever 21 is based in warwick. who knows....

It brings in car traffic, diverts business away from downtown shop owners, boxes-in window-shoppers who ought to be strolling down city streets, doesn't contribute to the city through paying sales tax, I could go on...

giant malls in cities are just silly. why build a mall when downtown is full of store-fronts?

in my home-town, philadelphia, there's a gigantic mall downtown called the gallery that was all flashy and shiny when they first built it, but has since gone completely to seed, now that people have reverted to doing their shopping out in the fresh air, door-to-door, old-fashion style along the city's big, lovely promenades.

Points taken, I know I would much rather have seen all those stores lining Westminster St or something, but in reality, the mall was the only thing that would have worked. I see it as a very big positive, it brings people into the city and has become a focal point. And for a mall, I sure like its design. It interacts with the street and isn't too bad architecturally for my taste. If it had surrounded by a sea of parking with no streetfront stores, then I'd be pissed. But it's not, so I think it works well and was a huge catalyst for the city.

[Thom]

i was walking by the other parking garage on washington (the one by the biltmore) and was thinking that it would be quite easy to add retail on a major portion of the ground floor of the garage facing washington, this part of the first floor has a high ceiling and a flat floor, maybe i'll take a picture to show what i mean.

This garage had retail, a very successful restaurant that was forced out when the Journal bought the garage. The commercial space was then removed to make way for more parking.

[webbage]

Points taken, I know I would much rather have seen all those stores lining Westminster St or something, but in reality, the mall was the only thing that would have worked. I see it as a very big positive, it brings people into the city and has become a focal point. And for a mall, I sure like its design. It interacts with the street and isn't too bad architecturally for my taste. If it had surrounded by a sea of parking with no streetfront stores, then I'd be pissed. But it's not, so I think it works well and was a huge catalyst for the city.

I think the mall is great, especially for people coming to the city for conventions and such becuase of the skybridge to the Westin.

[brick]

Providence Place is not even close to the same thing as the Gallery. In fact the Gallery is close to what urbanists should want. It is a connection between about 6 downtown buildings. The problem is the connection, whre the first floor of the mall is below street grade and therefore you don't get foot traffic with it. I actually think the Gallery is a damn fine idea that just didn't necessarily get executed properly, and I think the problem with it is the rich folks in the Philly suburbs go to one of the dozen or more suburban malls around Philly. I think as people move back downtown in Philly they can revitalize the Gallery.

Here's a Live Local View they did integrate a couple of older buildings.

[damus]

The problem is the connection, whre the first floor of the mall is below street grade and therefore you don't get foot traffic with it. I actually think the Gallery is a damn fine idea that just didn't necessarily get executed properly, and I think the problem with it is the rich folks in the Philly suburbs go to one of the dozen or more suburban malls around Philly. I think as people move back downtown in Philly they can revitalize the Gallery.

Well .. the underground city in Montreal is ... below street level, though I'm sure the subway system access helps it.

[brick]

Well .. the underground city in Montreal is ... below street level, though I'm sure the subway system access helps it.

Montreal is freaking cold. I think that's a big difference. Philly's winter lasts about 8 weeks, Montreal's lasts about 5 months. I'm not sure how the one in Atlanta manages to work other than being a tourist trap, though.