COMPLETE: The Old Public Safety Surface Lot

[jencoleslaw]

no temporary parking lots.

it is an embarassement to the city to have the entire gateway to downtown from 95 N surface parking. if that building comes down (and i don't think that it should, btw, i think that the facade can be used and i don't want to hear any cr@p from anyone except architects and engineers about how expensive it might be because with historic tax credits it can and should happen) then the day after it comes down, i want a groundbreaking with a new building driving piles that afternoon and i want the design of that building to have gone thru the vetting process that everyone else has to go thru regardless of how clueless or not DRC is (or isn't.) If the city hired actual land use lawyers in the solicitor's office, and staffed all the public meetings, the unpaid board and commissions would have a much easier time enforcing and understanding the regulations.

[brick]

it is an embarassement to the city to have the entire gateway to downtown from 95 N surface parking. if that building comes down (and i don't think that it should, btw, i think that the facade can be used and i don't want to hear any cr@p from anyone except architects and engineers about how expensive it might be because with historic tax credits it can and should happen) then the day after it comes down, i want a groundbreaking with a new building driving piles that afternoon and i want the design of that building to have gone thru the vetting process that everyone else has to go thru regardless of how clueless or not DRC is (or isn't.) If the city hired actual land use lawyers in the solicitor's office, and staffed all the public meetings, the unpaid board and commissions would have a much easier time enforcing and understanding the regulations.

[Cotuit]

One could argue that the root of this problem is the city selling off the building before a developer came with a real plan.

[runawayjim]

only one small part of that facade looks decent to me. and it would end up looking dumb in a new building in my opinion. i don't have a problem if they tear the whole thing down, but they shouldn't do it just to build a parking lot.

[webbage]

no temporary parking lots.

it is an embarassement to the city to have the entire gateway to downtown from 95 N surface parking.

[jencoleslaw]

parking lots trump historic, sometimes shabby buildings for embarassment to a downcity trying to reinvent itself as a destination any day. Anyone who believes that surface parking, temporary or otherwise has a place in downtown providence should start their own message board honoring the important work that's been done at Route 2 in Warwick.

[Liamlunchtray]

parking lots trump historic, sometimes shabby buildings for embarassment to a downcity trying to reinvent itself as a destination any day. Anyone who believes that surface parking, temporary or otherwise has a place in downtown providence should start their own message board honoring the important work that's been done at Route 2 in Warwick.

[gregw]

Like Brick, I am not a huge fan of the present structure. Granted, the facade along the side street facing the library has some presence and there are some niceish art deco plant reliefs on parts of the exterior that should be salvaged if the bldg comes down. The problem is that the most visible part of the structure is the utilitarian rear that faces Atwells. The parcel also contains a prominently sited parking lot that is unsightly and makes for a miserable gateway to downtown.

I think that few who would argue against tearing down the bldg would argue that it's great architecture. They either like it because it's a period piece, evoking film noir or Dragnet OR they could live without it but don't want to see yet another parking lot. That's definitely where I come down. As long as the building stands, it can either be rehabbed (fine) or replaced with something new (fine, maybe even better, as long as design standards are adherred to). A parking lot has the potential to just remain a parking lot, which is much more of a blight IMO than the status quo.

The argument that a bldg has to come down just because it's an eyesore is one that I am surprised that anyone in Providence would make. Many pieces of architecture here have been in this category at one time or another and now they're integral to the historic fabric of the city. Following this argument, we would have lost much of Benefit St., huge chunks of downtown, the Armory District, the list goes on.

[Lone Ranger]

Anybody know what TPG paid to acquire the complex?

[inProv]

I would ALWAYS rather see a shabby unoccupied building than a parking lot. Surface parking is eating up our entire downtown and it seems to only be increasing in the last year or two. I'm P!ssed about grants block, I'm p!ssed about all the acres of paveolino properties and I would be REALLY p!ssed about this.

[Frankie811]

Paolino got approval to knock down a bldg with the idea that he would soon build on the lot. That was something like 10 years ago and it's still a parking lot.

[Pseudo_Work]

Does anyone remember the name of the restaurant that was in the building that Paolino knocked down @ this location ( Matthewson St ). Speaking of food, I have to get off this diet. Check my avatar.

[gregw]

If it was at the corner of Matthewson and Washington, that was the Shepard's Tea Room, although I'm not sure what moved in after Shepard's closed.

[Frankie811]

If it was at the corner of Matthewson and Washington, that was the Shepard's Tea Room, although I'm not sure what moved in after Shepard's closed.

[jencoleslaw]

I think the Shepard Tea Room was actually on Union St. I think the place that I'm thinking of was a steak house.

[Frankie811]

you're probably thinking about Winklers (?) and i THINK it was in the parkade, wasn't it? maybe i'm thinking of mister donut.

[runawayjim]

I think your right.

[gregw]

you're probably thinking about Winklers (?) and i THINK it was in the parkade, wasn't it? maybe i'm thinking of mister donut.

[f1rehead]

I heard a rumor that TPG had some of the cornice removed from the building over the weekend so that water could get in and give them an excuse to turn it into a parking lot.

You'd think they would have learned from what happened with the Grove St. School, but I guess not.

[Cotuit]

Well to provide some balance to the rumor, they may have removed the cornice so that it wouldn't fall on someone later. They removed some windows on the Broadway side, but they have been boarded up. I'm not saying TPG is perfect, but they seem to take care of their properties, even if they'd rather tear them down (see the Fogarty Building).

[f1rehead]

Well to provide some balance to the rumor, they may have removed the cornice so that it wouldn't fall on someone later. They removed some windows on the Broadway side, but they have been boarded up. I'm not saying TPG is perfect, but they seem to take care of their properties, even if they'd rather tear them down (see the Fogarty Building).

[Pseudo_Work]

I heard a rumor that TPG had some of the cornice removed from the building over the weekend so that water could get in and give them an excuse to turn it into a parking lot.

You'd think they would have learned from what happened with the Grove St. School, but I guess not.

[runawayjim]

though i doubt those are TPG's intentions, they need a demolition permit before they can tear down any part of that building. they weren't granted one. so regardless of where the boundaries are for the historic district, they should not be tearing down any buildings that they don't have a permit to tear down. i don't care if it's the public safety complex, the shepard building, or the "beautiful" BCBS building. they should not come down until a permit is granted.

[f1rehead]

I'm not opposed to TPG tearing it down, but they were denied a permit to demolish the building for temporary use as a parking lot. This action could be part of an end-run around that decision.

But as Cotuit points out, it could also be a public safety issue.

With what happened to the gas station and Grove St. I think people (myself included) are jumpy when they hear about things like this.

[runawayjim]

I'm not opposed to TPG tearing it down, but they were denied a permit to demolish the building for temporary use as a parking lot. This action could be part of an end-run around that decision.

But as Cotuit points out, it could also be a public safety issue.

With what happened to the gas station and Grove St. I think people (myself included) are jumpy when they hear about things like this.