Jump to content

PROPOSED: Vista Della Torre


Recommended Posts

A 300' building on the circular gas station site would be welcomed by pretty much everyone who posts here. The same height on the "Atwells" site is very controversial. The distance between the parcels is precisely one block. Just goes to show what a psychological barrier the highway is.

Last I heard it was 299'.

Anyone else think that was intentional, to avoid the PR shock of calling it a "300 foot" building?

As for the rendering in question, I'm fine with the height, but the design looks like it belongs in Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 509
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Baines suggested that 600 feet be an overall height limit for the city and suggested other areas where the city should have more height, none of those areas being west of Dean Street on Broadway. So it remains, no one has suggested that anything taller than what is there now be built west of Dean Street on Broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion keeps going and going around in cricles, and people are always saying the same thing, so I'll say it again -

I am not opposed to height, but find the fascination with it on the board a little crazy. You could spend months citing examples of buildings that are financially viable, urban in nature, contributing to their surroundings, and comfortable for their occupants that are not that tall (just as you could find some examples of some that are really very tall).

So the question is, how do you plan for this, and how do you set the limits? Currently, there is no plan for this type of building, and it hasn't been vetted by any sort of process (which I guess we are currently trying to remedy.) If it is ok to have this parcel go up to 300 feet just because it is next to the CBD, then that logic would dictate that this just goes on forever. "Well, my neighbor built a 300 foot bldg, so I should be able to build a 300 ft bldg."

Zoning is the tool to implement the plan. I personally don't think this building belongs in this location. 10 stories? If its designed well? Sure. 12? maybe. but when you go over that, you really start to loom over the surroundings in a way that I think really would be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion keeps going and going around in cricles, and people are always saying the same thing, so I'll say it again -

I am not opposed to height, but find the fascination with it on the board a little crazy. You could spend months citing examples of buildings that are financially viable, urban in nature, contributing to their surroundings, and comfortable for their occupants that are not that tall (just as you could find some examples of some that are really very tall).

I'm not facinated with height, I don't think it should go everywhere. What I find vexing is this desire to bridge the highway, but this counter desire to make it the line in the sand. Which is it, are we going to bridge it, or are we going to make it the dividing line? There are plenty of small scale historic districts in other cities that do not have a highway protecting them from adjacent highrise districts. If the highway had never been built would that location still be the line in people's minds? The Crossroads building which predates the highway leads one to believe no.

If it is ok to have this parcel go up to 300 feet just because it is next to the CBD, then that logic would dictate that this just goes on forever. "Well, my neighbor built a 300 foot bldg, so I should be able to build a 300 ft bldg."

If we had proper zoning that would not be so. It is not the developers fault that we do not have proper zoning. You cant fault the developers for trying to take advantage of our broken system. We can a draw a line on where height is and isn't allowed, and that is what the current zoning review should be doing.

Just because some believe that one block, adjacent to the CBD district, that has exisiting precedence for height should be open to more, does not logically leap to the conclusion that a perpetual motion machine of block after block of height will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because some believe that one block, adjacent to the CBD district, that has exisiting precedence for height should be open to more, does not logically leap to the conclusion that a perpetual motion machine of block after block of height will follow.

Ideally, I think this zone adjacent to the highway needs to be more a transitional area - 6 to 10 (ok 12) floor heights max, with set backs mandated to keep a more reasonable street edge on Atwells, Broadway, Westminster, Broad...again, I look to the original design of Rialto, which really did a good job of creating density (in an economic way) in a contextually symathetic way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not facinated with height, I don't think it should go everywhere. What I find vexing is this desire to bridge the highway, but this counter desire to make it the line in the sand. Which is it, are we going to bridge it, or are we going to make it the dividing line? There are plenty of small scale historic districts in other cities that do not have a highway protecting them from adjacent highrise districts. If the highway had never been built would that location still be the line in people's minds? The Crossroads building which predates the highway leads one to believe no.

I'd love to see the highway decked over because it will help create a transitional area between the CBD and the westside. But as far as I know, that idea doesn't seem to have any traction behind it. Since he came up with it, perhaps Buddy will work on it after he gets out of prison next year. :P (Given a choice though, I think reconnecting Westminster Street to downtown would be a huge and more feasible step to take in the short term).

So until that happens, we're stuck with a de facto line in the sand. In the case of Atwells and Broadway, I think it is a "natural" boundary between the CBD and Federal Hill, based on the predominant scale and development of the area. However, as you pointed out, that isn't the case for Broad, Westminster and perhaps even Washington. The scale and type of development (all masonry buildings with mostly commercial and institutional uses) along Westminster Street is fairly consistent right up to and beyond Citizen's Bank - I don't think Dean Street would be the natural boundary for Westminster. Likewise, I don't think that Dean Street would be the natural boundary for Atwells either - I'd put it back at the Service Road or possibly Bradford Street behind Domenica.

To my mind, the zoning should follow along the streets that radiate west of downtown and stop at different points based on the context of area. The zone along Broad might go as far as Fricker, Westminster might go a block or so past Winter, etc.

Presumably, the Service Road would be in the same zone as the above streets. But I feel it's important to make it a transitional zone, as eltron points out, in terms of dimensional issues and perhaps use in order to create a smooth transition between the CBD and the westside.

If we had proper zoning that would not be so. It is not the developers fault that we do not have proper zoning. You cant fault the developers for trying to take advantage of our broken system. We can a draw a line on where height is and isn't allowed, and that is what the current zoning review should be doing.

Just because some believe that one block, adjacent to the CBD district, that has exisiting precedence for height should be open to more, does not logically leap to the conclusion that a perpetual motion machine of block after block of height will follow.

If it is ok to have this parcel go up to 300 feet just because it is next to the CBD, then that logic would dictate that this just goes on forever. "Well, my neighbor built a 300 foot bldg, so I should be able to build a 300 ft bldg."

When you say "proper zoning" I assume you mean how the Ordinance is being implemented by the ZBR, right? If that's the case, I couldn't agree with you more. When I was at the Preservation Society, we looked back at 3 years worth of ZBR variance decisions in the late 90's (this would be after the Zoning Ordinance was revised in 94) to see what the rate of approval was. As I recall, the approval rating was around 90%!

This high approval of variances suggested that either: 1. the zoning ordinance was rubbish and the revisions made in 1994 were completely off-base and obviously a waste a time; or 2. the ZBR was too lenient (or pressured, or disinterested). I found it especially telling that whenever we chose to appeal an approved variance, we would consistently win the appeal; the ZBR wasn't following it's own process for granting variances as outlined in the ordinance.

Based on my experience, I agree with eltron; too often precedent (and bad precedent at that) was a key factor in a ZBR decision (even though, according to Zoning Ordinance, precedent is not supposed to be considered). And don't get me started on how poorly those variance requests are filled-out by the applicants.

Thanks to some turnover on the ZBR, I think that the process is beginning to change. But old habits sometimes die hard . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the highway decked over because it will help create a transitional area between the CBD and the westside. But as far as I know, that idea doesn't seem to have any traction behind it. Since he came up with it, perhaps Buddy will work on it after he gets out of prison next year. :P (Given a choice though, I think reconnecting Westminster Street to downtown would be a huge and more feasible step to take in the short term).

So until that happens, we're stuck with a de facto line in the sand. In the case of Atwells and Broadway, I think it is a "natural" boundary between the CBD and Federal Hill, based on the predominant scale and development of the area. However, as you pointed out, that isn't the case for Broad, Westminster and perhaps even Washington. The scale and type of development (all masonry buildings with mostly commercial and institutional uses) along Westminster Street is fairly consistent right up to and beyond Citizen's Bank - I don't think Dean Street would be the natural boundary for Westminster. Likewise, I don't think that Dean Street would be the natural boundary for Atwells either - I'd put it back at the Service Road or possibly Bradford Street behind Domenica.

To my mind, the zoning should follow along the streets that radiate west of downtown and stop at different points based on the context of area. The zone along Broad might go as far as Fricker, Westminster might go a block or so past Winter, etc.

You say height is definitely a bad thing for Broadway but might be appropriate on a handful of other streets. OK, trouble is, what happens when somebody else objects to increased height on Westminster or Broad or Washington?

As they will. Because people around here, for some reason I'll never understand, view height as the encroachments of The Man.

Something has to give. As I said before, it happens that the lot sits beside the biggest transit corridor in the city -- in the state -- in New England, for that matter. And that's where eltron's objection dies. The height isn't being proposed for this particular location because of Broadway, it's being proposed because of I-95. I don't think you'll have to worry about a wall of 300-footers running the length of Broadway anytime soon.

And then too, it occurs to me that if the Dominica Manor didn't exist, and this proposal were for 200', there would be complaints about that, too. As an earlier poster pointed out, once upon a time, this whole area was nothing but virgin forest. Is that our model for the future, reject all proposals for change?

As I said before, something has to give. There just needs to be a sound reason in support of a change ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Dean Street would be the natural boundary for Westminster. Likewise, I don't think that Dean Street would be the natural boundary for Atwells either - I'd put it back at the Service Road or possibly Bradford Street behind Domenica.

I agree and should be more specific, I use Dean broadly. When I do actually think that in the Broad Street area for example, height can bleed beyond the Dean Street corridor (that's not actually Dean that far south, without consulting a map I can't remember what it's called). And I think between Broadway and Atwells that Bradford rather than Dean is the line (because Dean slides westward there). Also I haven't specified because there is development between Bradford and Dean at that location and I'm thinking purely of developable lots, not area zoning. I would not zone the area between Bradford and Dean that is already developed for height, so as not to put pressure on those parcels to be demolished and redeveloped. There are a couple empty parcels between Bradford and Dean at Broadway, I'd give them height, but more in the 10-12 story range, perhaps a bit taller with density bonuses. So the line would be more Dean to Broadway, to Federal, then Federal to Bradford, and Bradford to Atwells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just want to make sure that this parcel is still completely a rumor, correct???

It's more than rumour, they've been applying for variances and they do have plans. But they haven't been moving through approvals very agressively. They keep asking for continuances on thier street abandonment for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the fearful problems many have over projects like this is that there's no oversight because of the footprint. Projects like this kind of fall into a "no man's zone"--They don't have to go before CPC, or Downcity Review or any other kind of design/planning commission. They ONLY have to go before Zoning Board of Review and i as i have said a million times (please feel free to count) sometimes the legal (zoning) hook is the ONLY one you have to slow a project down, and try to get concessions such as design or traffic or landscaping or affordable housing!

It won't always be like this, i hope--with the new zoning code, projects like this will be seen by SOMEONE other than the SBR but this is what we're left with now. So i say b*tch all you want about scale and height because its just about the only thing you can use to make anything like this a better project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i will bet a dozen donuts that the majority of the land that will become available in the relocation of 195 has already been spoken for, privately, with the city.

I know my response to this comment is a little late, but come on Jen, you really think in this day with everything being scrutinized that the city would have already made deals with people for the land. Yes Johnson and Wales has gotten priority rights to some land through an act of the legislature and yes lots of people are claimng some rights, but we are still struggling with RIDOT to determine how the title to the property will be cleared and how the property will be sold. I'm not naive enough to beleive that the process won't have a few political bumps in the road, but what you are alleging hasn't happened.

When do I get my donuts??? I would like donuts with chocolate icing and lots of sprinkles for my kids. thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who lives >on< Broadway, I would love to see the CBD "spill over" onto the other side of the service road through projects like this. It would >definitely< close the gap that 95 has created between my neighborhood and the central part of the city.

I would not see this in any way encroaching on the historic character of Broadway and think those arguments are quite silly. Would I rather see Broadway come to an end with a cliff and a ravine... or would I rather see Broadway coming to an end with the beginning of downtown? It's obviously the latter.

Maybe with another couple hundred people living there, the city would find it within themselves to shovel the bridges that cross I-95 during the winters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say height is definitely a bad thing for Broadway but might be appropriate on a handful of other streets. OK, trouble is, what happens when somebody else objects to increased height on Westminster or Broad or Washington?

As they will. Because people around here, for some reason I'll never understand, view height as the encroachments of The Man.

Something has to give. As I said before, it happens that the lot sits beside the biggest transit corridor in the city -- in the state -- in New England, for that matter. And that's where eltron's objection dies. The height isn't being proposed for this particular location because of Broadway, it's being proposed because of I-95. I don't think you'll have to worry about a wall of 300-footers running the length of Broadway anytime soon.

And then too, it occurs to me that if the Dominica Manor didn't exist, and this proposal were for 200', there would be complaints about that, too. As an earlier poster pointed out, once upon a time, this whole area was nothing but virgin forest. Is that our model for the future, reject all proposals for change?

As I said before, something has to give. There just needs to be a sound reason in support of a change ...

It's very true that DM has somewhat dulled people to a larger massing West of downtown, along with the former YMCA. However, the bigger question is, as a city like Prov grows and more people are proposing larger buildings in more places, when does the scale begin to step down to the neighborhood scale that is so predominant in Prov? The proposal for this site is too tall for me. Maybe my earlier suggestion of 10% above DM is a little conservative, but at some point it has to be recognized that the adjacent neighborhood is there to stay and living next to a 300' building if you are in a 3 story building would kind of suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the bigger question is, as a city like Prov grows and more people are proposing larger buildings in more places, when does the scale begin to step down to the neighborhood scale that is so predominant in Prov?

I'll answer your question with a question... Who is to say a neighborhood's scale is static and unending? If that were true, the Turk's Head Building would never have been built downtown (its predecesors were 2-3 floor buildings). Should modern Manhattan have been held to the historical scaling of New Amsterdam?

As the area becomes denser and more desirable, that land is going to get more and more expensive, and without charging an absolute fortune for square footage, the only other solution is to build taller and denser.

One could argue that modern economics don't make that traditional scale possible. If you bought that land for a completely hypothetical 2 million dollars, would you build a 4 million dollar triple decker?

The proposal for this site is too tall for me. Maybe my earlier suggestion of 10% above DM is a little conservative, but at some point it has to be recognized that the adjacent neighborhood is there to stay and living next to a 300' building if you are in a 3 story building would kind of suck.

Again, posing a question: Why would living next to a 300' building suck?

In my time, I've lived across from New Haven's tallest tower and directly across from this monster in Manhattan:

eastBuilding.gif

...and I really didn't notice either one. At ground level, you could never sense how tall the neighboring building was and, looking outside my window, whether it was 300' or 100', I'd still be looking at the other building anyway.

Why would a tall building, in your eyes, be so unpleasant to have as a neighbor?

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going back to the beginning of this thread and read about the decking over of the highway... could we possibly turn that topic into another thread??? If there is enough info for us to chat about..I'd love to learn how you deck over a highway and make people feel safe enough to walk on it.

Maybe there are construction pics of other city's projects.. etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a tall building, in your eyes, be so unpleasant to have as a neighbor?

I think I can answer that question.

It has nothing to do with the height of the building itself. It has everything to do with our -- that is, Rhode Islanders' -- perceptions of tall buildings.

This occurred to me not so long ago. Consider the tall buildings in this state outside of Downcity Providence. Excluding those, I think every single high-rise in the state is low-income housing of some sort. We've got highrises for the very old and highrises for the very poor. And thassit.

I could be wrong. If so, somebody enlighten me. But to the best of my knowledge, this is the truth.

Or to be blunt, to our subconscious RI minds, highrise residential = slum.

Which is rather funny, if you think about it. All over the world, people are stepping on each other's heads to get into ritzy highrise condos. Think Dubai, New York, London, Gold Coast City, Hong Kong, Vancouver, Toronto.

Maybe 110, Waterplace, Westin II, and Carnegie Abbey will change our perception somewhat, so that Rhode Islanders come to see living in highrises as being (potentially) a desirable situation. I sure as heck hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes a lot of sense. I never really thought of it that way...even as a native :sick: ...but I think you might be right. If you are right, how sad is that? Progressive thinking RI'ers-0....Complacent status quo-5....game over!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....game over!!!!

To this point, yes. But as I said, the condos are coming. Once they're online, let's see what defense they make for themselves in the court of public opinion.

In that sense, I think Carnegie Abbey is especially important, as the only luxury condo tower not in Providence. In Portsmouth, of all places, it will be the tallest building in the state outside of Providence. And you wanna talk about prominent, boy. I'd kill to see what the penthouse views in the building will look like. Right in the middle of everything, looking up the Mount Hope Bay on the one hand and out over the Narragansett on the other, with all of our attractive geography on full display. Cost, $7m and probably worth every penny.

The building itself will be nice -- it's a nicer design than Waterplace, I'll say that. And their sales should be quite strong, IMO, almost completely independent of the rest of the market in this area. Their sales are going to relate almost entirely to the Carnegie Abbey Club and the Newport connection.

For a long time an eyesore, the Kaiser Aluminum Factory is about to become the Golden Goose for the town of Portsmouth.

Now, we've talked about that project here before, and yes I know the height was grandfathered in, so to speak. But if Carnegie Abbey proves to be successful -- and I think it should be extremely successful -- give it about 5 years, and I think there are a lot of bayside communities in this state that are going to want to start weighing their options, as far as zoning is concerned. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.