PROPOSED: Vista Della Torre

[mental757]

well, I'm glad to see that they are at least looking at the level of scope! I counted 27 or so stories, whcih would easily put this well into the 300 foot range.

The building itself isn't terrible, but can easily be improved upon for sure. The green space may be just a 'filler' until they computerize it into the existing surroundings.

Jencoleslaw - at least they are thinking trees!!

[eltron]

Great scoop!

Unfortunately, I really dislike that tower! Nothing going on at the base, presumably disconnected from everything with its greenspace buffer, and it's a brick-with-balconies with some Italianate detailing here or there to try to distract from the banality.

Nearby Dominica Manor seems to have been the unfortunate inspiration!

I'll need to see more, of course, but thumbs down to that render...

- Garris

I agree completely. I really like Newport Collaborative work, and it does say "conceptual", but this is pretty bad. It needs some serious work to even remotely fit on this parcel (if it even IS this parcel, though I can't imagine it anywhere else...).

[mental757]

This parcel has been rumored for some time, the area beside Dominca Manor and Broadway (not sure why it's been being called the Atwells Parcel, come to think of it). I'm hoping to gather some more information and perhaps renderings this weekend or next week. 299foot, residential, yes the space is zoned for 45feet.

A map of the approximate location, ignore the 55 Broadway, it's an old map.

after reading the thread starter, maybe Cotuit has some more info on this?? It's been much more than a week since June 1st...

[Cotuit]

whcih would easily put this well into the 300 foot range.

Last I heard it was 299'.

I spoke to Thom about this a couple weeks ago, and he thought that the developer had pulled the renderings from his office, meaning they were going to submit something else, and what they had submitted was no longer valid. I don't know if this is what they pulled or not, I'll see if I can track him down and get more info, though I'm sure he's crazy busy with PVD Tomorrow and the annual RIPTA financial crisis.

[Cotuit]

Are we viewing this from Dominca Manor with Broadway behind it and Barclay or Bradford in the tunnel? They are trying to abandon Barclay (which PS, currently has a city sign at the Federal Street end that says "Not A Public Way"). Is the tunnel a trick for not abandoning Barclay?

[mental757]

I would GUESS that we are viewing it from the west - route 95 would be behind it as we see it now????

[JJK5]

For reference, how tall is Dominica Manor? 299' on an already elevated area seems like this is going to be a giant.

[Cotuit]

For reference, how tall is Dominica Manor? 299' on an already elevated area seems like this is going to be a giant.

175'

It will indeed be giant, I'm not really too concerned about the height on it's face. But I do pretty much hate this rendering. That height at that location (which I said, I have no problem with in concept) needs to have some sort of stepped massing to reach that height. This appears to be 299' growing straight out of the street. This does serve to form a 'wall' as the WBNA people are so fond of panicking about. It doesn't bring me personally to a level of panic, but I would like to see the height stepped back from Broadway.

[jencoleslaw]

Are we viewing this from Dominca Manor with Broadway behind it and Barclay or Bradford in the tunnel? They are trying to abandon Barclay (which PS, currently has a city sign at the Federal Street end that says "Not A Public Way"). Is the tunnel a trick for not abandoning Barclay?

i don't think so. I saw this render at least 2 months ago and the archy thing was there. I am no sure what is holding up the Barclay st abandonment--it has come before us twice, once with no info and the last time was automatically continued (with the other abandonments) Not sure what that is about and frankly, i'm afraid to ask.

[Cotuit]

Maybe Federal Street is in the tunnel?

[dexter]

Whew. What a piece of ....! This project has been lurking around for a couple of years and I thought it had gone away. If this is correct, I think it is pretty much way out of scale for the predominately 3 story neighborhood directly behind. I can see it being within 10% or so of Dominica.

[DaveRPI]

Whew. What a piece of ....! This project has been lurking around for a couple of years and I thought it had gone away. If this is correct, I think it is pretty much way out of scale for the predominately 3 story neighborhood directly behind. I can see it being within 10% or so of Dominica.

when those 3 story buildings were built, what was around them to have them be in scale with their neighborhood? farm houses, trees, and nothing...

just because something was there first doesnt mean its the only or the sole correct structure for that area

change is necessary to have the city progress as an urban center as so many people have wanted

[ruchele]

change is necessary to have the city progress as an urban center as so many people have wanted

Sure, but the question is, is this proposal the direction we want the neighborhood changing in? Is this progressing like we WANT to progress? We need to have a long-term picture of what we want this neighborhood to eveolve into, and compare a proposal like this to that picture. I'm not adverse to height and density, but I don't think this render shows a good precident for what we want the neighborhood to turn into.

(Comprehensive plan! Updated zoning!)

[quente]

change is necessary to have the city progress as an urban center as so many people have wanted

There's a great quote on this topic: "Change is inevitable; progress is not".

I expect our neighborhood to change but I feel strongly that it needs to happen in a measured and organized fashion. When a single, grandiose project such as this is proposed and then becomes the rationale for having to revise zoning regulations that are "out-of-date", the whole planning process is subverted. I find this approach to planning akin to the "tail wagging the dog".

The density and scale of this proposal is especially problematic because it's a quantum leap from the streetscape and neighborhood that currently exists. Since precedent is an important factor in zoning issues, I'm concerned that this type of project could set the stage for similar development along Broadway. I, for one, do not want to risk losing the unique Victorian character of Broadway.

To my mind, a more reasonable bump up in density would be something along the lines of Newbury Street in Boston with 5- to 6-story townhouses with residential on top and commercial on the bottom.

[Cotuit]

Newbury Street doesn't overlook an expressway though. I don't like this particular rendering, but a project of this size at this location does not put Broadway at risk. This project is on the highway, it has nothing to do with the rest of Broadway.

[brick]

Newbury Street doesn't overlook an expressway though. I don't like this particular rendering, but a project of this size at this location does not put Broadway at risk. This project is on the highway, it has nothing to do with the rest of Broadway.

To which point it's worth noting that Newbury is capped by a 9 story building where it hits the Mass Ave./Mass Pike end. And I do think that building (the old Tower Records building, I forget it's actual name) could be three times as tall without affecting the rest of Newbury St.

[Garris]

To which point it's worth noting that Newbury is capped by a 9 story building where it hits the Mass Ave./Mass Pike end. And I do think that building (the old Tower Records building, I forget it's actual name) could be three times as tall without affecting the rest of Newbury St.

Agreed, and great analogy.

- Garris

[quente]

Newbury Street doesn't overlook an expressway though. I don't like this particular rendering, but a project of this size at this location does not put Broadway at risk. This project is on the highway, it has nothing to do with the rest of Broadway.

While I appreciate the points that you and Brick make about this project not impacting Broadway, I think there are several factors that you may not have considered:

- First, I think this project has everything to do with Broadway. When Belmonte Castello on Atwells was applying for variances, Domenica Manor was cited as a precedent for permitting such a jump in height. I think a comment was made that the 2 buildings would serve as "bookends" along Atwells Avenue.

- 300 feet is currently the max height for downtown - I think allowing this scale of development to cross over the highway is a problem. Federal Hill is not the CBD and I think that distinction needs to be maintained from a zoning perspective. If they need 300 feet to make the numbers work, then perhaps the project should be built in downtown (if they want a Broadway address, perhaps the gas station lot or the old public safety building would suffice).

Finally, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how you think a planning process should move forward. I likened this discussion to the tail wagging the dog. Under current zoning, this project would need a number of variances to get off the drawing board. Therefore, before debating the merits of a specific project, I would want a broader discussion on the character and development pattern of the neighborhood, decide what works and what doesn't work and then make recommendations for fixing the Zoning Ordinance.

As I see it, the discussion on what is or isn't appropriate in terms of height, massing, setback, etc. is being framed by this proposal. Frankly, this discussion is much broader than the Atwells Parcel and I think it's ill-advised to assume that a project of this magnitude will not have an effect on the neighborhood.

[Cotuit]

To which point it's worth noting that Newbury is capped by a 9 story building where it hits the Mass Ave./Mass Pike end. And I do think that building (the old Tower Records building, I forget it's actual name) could be three times as tall without affecting the rest of Newbury St.

It's also worth noting that Broadway is nothing like Newbury Street in scale and character. But if we want to push the Newbury analogy, there is an on-again/off-again proposal to build a tower that far exceeds this one in height over the Mass Pike at the far end of Newbury.

Finally, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how you think a planning process should move forward. I likened this discussion to the tail wagging the dog. Under current zoning, this project would need a number of variances to get off the drawing board. Therefore, before debating the merits of a specific project, I would want a broader discussion on the character and development pattern of the neighborhood, decide what works and what doesn't work and then make recommendations for fixing the Zoning Ordinance.

As I see it, the discussion on what is or isn't appropriate in terms of height, massing, setback, etc. is being framed by this proposal. Frankly, this discussion is much broader than the Atwells Parcel and I think it's ill-advised to assume that a project of this magnitude will not have an effect on the neighborhood.

My thoughts on the topic are not being framed by this project but by my experience of living on Federal Hill, and my personal thoughts on how the Near West Side needs to connect the Greater West Side to Downcity and bridge the highway. You don't see this area as part of the CBD, I do. The area between Dean and the Service Roads I see as the western fringe of Downcity and I find height, even this height perfectly appropriate.

However, under revised zoing I wouldn't necessarily want to see this project get an automatic green light at this height in this location. I'd like to see developers earn this kind of hieght through affordablility bonuses, green bonuses, cooperative parking bonuses... Part of the problem with this particular rendering though is something that I'm unsure you can remedy through zoning. That is the fact that this is a gateway parcel, basically how do you zone for taste? You can zone in setbacks, though so a building like this doesn't just grow 300 feet straight out of the sidewalk. This should combine Downcity's height with Broadway's streetwall. There should be a set back at around 5 stories, then another one a bit further up. That can be zoned. The MetroLofts up the down the street steps back.

I also never said I didn't think a project of this scale would not have an effect on the neighborhood. I simply don't see that effect as being automatically negative, and I'm not buying the arguement that if you let this in, then we're going to see Broadway suddenly lined with similar towers. That's ridiculous fear mongering, the same as the Fox Pointers thinking India Point will be lined with thousand foot towers. If we didn't have zoning by variance, as we do now, then we wouldn't have to worry at all about Broadway, it's not zoned for this.

Allowing Downcity to come one block across the highway bridges the highway both physically and psychologically. More people in the Near West Side means more neighborhood retail options for those of us on the rest of the West Side. More people living here means more foot traffic, more vibrant streets, pedestrians taking the landscape back from the automobile.

[Baines]

Near West Side needs to connect the Greater West Side to Downcity and bridge the highway. You don't see this area as part of the CBD, I do. The area between Dean and the Service Roads I see as the western fringe of Downcity and I find height, even this height perfectly appropriate.

Allowing Downcity to come one block across the highway bridges the highway both physically and psychologically. More people in the Near West Side means more neighborhood retail options for those of us on the rest of the West Side. More people living here means more foot traffic, more vibrant streets, pedestrians taking the landscape back from the automobile.

Let me jump in here....these two points made by Cotuit are key to the argument, in my view.

The 55 Broadway, Empire at Broadway, and the opening of Westminster Street across the highway are exactly the type of actions that make a movement of the CBD westward both logical and positive for the reasons stated by Cotuit; and more.

Providence must 1) identify it's once vibrant areas (like Broadway) and look to schemes that connect them to currently active areas (like the CBD) so as to 2) encourage building and activity that will feed new life and do so in a way that embraces the notion that 3) past zoning (particularly height) should not be a determinant of future zoning. Otherwise, how do we move forward and take advantage of the downcity's assets?

As to the 300" limit in the CBD - this is a great example of holding onto the past so as to restrict the future. The scale of the 1930s is not the same as today. A 600' limit is much more realistic for a city of Providence's size and density. Logically extending that to the area of the Service Roads, south of the CBD to the new Rt 195, and north along North Main Street; looking at 300' buildings is well within the apportionate movement out from the CBD core.

[mental757]

isn't it also relative to remember that it is fairly likely that we may one day see the 'hole' between this site and the CBD created by route 95 decked over??

I think it is. In fact, I think this might be THE first part to get decked over when/if it happens...

[quente]

Providence must 1) identify it's once vibrant areas (like Broadway) and look to schemes that connect them to currently active areas (like the CBD) so as to 2) encourage building and activity that will feed new life and do so in a way that embraces the notion that 3) past zoning (particularly height) should not be a determinant of future zoning. Otherwise, how do we move forward and take advantage of the downcity's assets?

I

[Cotuit]

Allowing 300 foot tall buildings by right along this part of Broadway would cause undue development pressure that would likely result in the loss of the small scale buildings that currently define the streetscape.

If the areas west of Dean are not zoned for the height that east of Dean is zoned for, then there is no pressure on the existing buildings on Broadway (or Atwells, or Westminster...) west of Dean.

If the price to "take advantage of the downcity's assets" is to modify zoning so we can potentially allow for the construction of 300 (or 600) foot buildings along Broadway...

You can disagree with anything I say and certainly provide a counter argument if you wish, but accusing me of

[quente]

If the areas west of Dean are not zoned for the height that east of Dean is zoned for, then there is no pressure on the existing buildings on Broadway (or Atwells, or Westminster...) west of Dean.

No one has proposed a 600 foot building "along Broadway." A 300 foot building has been proposed at the edge of the highway. Your leap is fear mongering and ridiculous.

This is getting silly. I was expecting a more thoughtful discussion on this topic but so be it.

Contrary to what you seem to think of my intentions, the 600 foot reference in my previous post is in regards to Baines suggestion below.

As to the 300" limit in the CBD - this is a great example of holding onto the past so as to restrict the future. The scale of the 1930s is not the same as today. A 600' limit is much more realistic for a city of Providence's size and density. Logically extending that to the area of the Service Roads, south of the CBD to the new Rt 195, and north along North Main Street; looking at 300' buildings is well within the apportionate movement out from the CBD core.

Rest well.

[Lone Ranger]

Broadway, Broadway, Broadway, harp on that all you want, but it just so happens that I-95 cuts through the area too. The CBD is one place to zone for height, but transit corridors are another. I agree that the 600 footers belong in the CBD, but 300' is, to be perfectly honest, not that tall.