Jump to content

RUMOR: New Financial District Tower?

billypc99

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

hotel rooms are the infrastructure larger conventions depends upon, no rooms, no large conventions, generally speaking... "lets see.... what we can support" ???? what do you care if a hyatt in downtown providence fails. do you have stake in it? you really dont have much to complain about with a hotel in "DOWNTOWN PROVIDENCE" hard to argue with the zoning on that one so if someone wants to build one and they get design clearance in a historic area and take the monetary risk you pretty much have to let them...

AZ and RI had the highest growth rates in real estate appreciation over the past year or so

For once I agree with Jerry. Why be so hasty? Give it a year or two, three or four at most. Let all of these hotel projects come online, and if we really do see the projected corresponding increase in convention size, then the proof will be in the pudding, so to speak: the percentage of full hotel rooms will tell us that we can increase our current stock.

We hurt nothing by waiting. On the other hand, if we hurry to build as many hotel rooms as we can, and if in our hurry we overbuild, we're going to have a bunch of abandoned buildings that will just sit there, rotting. What's the point of that?

This is just me thinking out loud, but it would seem to me that, because of the question of parking, large hotel projects in a truly urban area are a big undertaking. If we outbuild ourselves on hotels now, those buildings are going to be hard to fill later in any way that would prove feasible to their owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pseudo_Work Hamlet

Pseudo_Work

Posted
Posted

Yes, there's parks on the river from the Crawford Bridge south, and that is set to expand with the 195 relocation, there's also a large park at Memorial Square, and indeed there's also Burnside. The parking lots between Memorial Blvd. and Weybosset Street can and should be developed.

That isn't my point. If we're really trying to make this into a waterfront city, then what sense does it make to stick skyscrapers in the way of the west side waterfront that would otherwise be continuous? It's stupid. Frankly, that sort of attitude is what makes me scared of what's going to happen to the lots on the east side that will be open to development once the highway is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

That isn't my point. If we're really trying to make this into a waterfront city, then what sense does it make to stick skyscrapers in the way of the west side waterfront that would otherwise be continuous? It's stupid. Frankly, that sort of attitude is what makes me scared of what's going to happen to the lots on the east side that will be open to development once the highway is gone.

most of the lots on the east side will become parks.

however, the waterfront park could be as simple as a riverwalk, which works perfectly in the way it is now. but you shouldn't have a big park 2-3 blocks from another one in an area that's already dominated by tall buildings. it doesn't do anything for the city. the park from the 195 removal will also be a short distance away and it will be connected to india point park on the east side. so no, those lots should not be turned into a park, but rather a building. and besides... it's not a waterfront park because of memorial blvd running between them and the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sin5Cents Unincorporated Area

Sin5Cents

Posted
Posted

Sorry to disappoint ctownmikey, but I would be VERY doubtful that this is a Citizens Bank project.

a) Citizens has shown very little interest in owning/developing real estate. They've sold their own tower and leased it back. Recently, they've sold hundreds of branch buildings in their network and again leased them back. Citizens wants to be a bank.. not a property owner.

* Conceivably, they could just be the major tenant for someone else who develops and owns... but that brings me to point b

b) Citizens doesn't have a huge need for room in Providence. Citizens has been pretty content ringing Providence with suburban operational facilities: East Providence, Cranston, 3 Buildings in Warwick on Jefferson Blvd, Smithfield... Providence itself only has some executives, a few lucrative business units and training.. I think this is because of tax reasons (inventory tax?)..

* Conceivably, any building could be accompanied by some major tax concession from Providence... but why bother??

* * * * * * * * * * * *

All that being said... Citizens is the 9th largest bank in the United States. Maybe someone finally came to the conclusion that it should have a bit more of an impressive headquarters?!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

Sorry to disappoint ctownmikey, but I would be VERY doubtful that this is a Citizens Bank project.

That's OK, if Citizen's were to build, I'd rather they do it on the enormous parking lot in their existing building's space...

most of the lots on the east side will become parks.

Actually, hopefully not... Don't believe the wacko Fox Point hype that all that land should become parks!

Those lots are owned, and I have long thought and posted that those areas are needed for development to connect S. Main with Wickenden and S. Water streets in a continous way that unites those mixed use districts. Historically, before 195, that area was an extremely important and vibrant retail and commercial zone. Given its great location and neighboring areas that are thriving (S. Main, Wickenden, S. Water), there's no reason why this area wouldn't take off.

That said, I don't think there should be towers here at all. Any development should respect the existing streetscapes. Also, I see nothing wrong with a riverwalk extension to link India Point Park, the (hopefully) future pedestrian bridge, and Waterplace.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I feel there's a need for one of Cotuit's patented 10 minute maps for this discussion, it feels like people are talking about different areas.

i'm confused about what garris was talking about...

the lots i think towers should be on are the ones next to textron. the lots on the east side are what will be cleared from the highway relocation (and i couldn't find the thread that discussed the building of the park).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I'm talking about the land on the East Side that will be opened up by the demolishing of the 195 bridge...

- Garris

ok... no towers there, but some development (not entirely a park since there's already a good sized park). for towers, i meant that they should be on the surface parking lots next to textron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
Posted

Actually, hopefully not... Don't believe the wacko Fox Point hype that all that land should become parks!

Those lots are owned, and I have long thought and posted that those areas are needed for development to connect S. Main with Wickenden and S. Water streets in a continous way that unites those mixed use districts. Historically, before 195, that area was an extremely important and vibrant retail and commercial zone. Given its great location and neighboring areas that are thriving (S. Main, Wickenden, S. Water), there's no reason why this area wouldn't take off.

I agree with you, but what do you mean when you say 'those lots are owned?' Everything under 195 is owned by RIDoT right now. Are you talking south of the current 195 the Fox's Point area outside the Hurricane Barrier?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=pvd&t=h&...001931,0.005364

these are the lots I was talking about...

I'm iffy on height there, but certainly think they should all be developed.

I'll do a map when I get home so we can refer to things better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KRC Hamlet

KRC

Posted
Posted

The current hotel projects and proposals are the free market. The only one that's not is the additional rooms at the Westin, but it's not publicly funded and I doubt the state would have got 10 proposals to buy the Westin and add rooms if the free market didn't think it could support it.

I'm not saying we're not reaching saturation, but there's nothing getting in the way of the market operating itself.

PS: east of Dorrance.

Hmm. A fresh new 28 Permit is in the doorway of the People's Bank building AND I have seen construction guys coming in and out of the building. One of them was going in with several Dunkin Donuts coffees...so it must be something serious!!!!! As it so happens, that particular building is east of Dorrance. Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pseudo_Work Hamlet

Pseudo_Work

Posted
Posted

That's OK, if Citizen's were to build, I'd rather they do it on the enormous parking lot in their existing building's space...

Actually, hopefully not... Don't believe the wacko Fox Point hype that all that land should become parks!

Those lots are owned, and I have long thought and posted that those areas are needed for development to connect S. Main with Wickenden and S. Water streets in a continous way that unites those mixed use districts. Historically, before 195, that area was an extremely important and vibrant retail and commercial zone. Given its great location and neighboring areas that are thriving (S. Main, Wickenden, S. Water), there's no reason why this area wouldn't take off.

That said, I don't think there should be towers here at all. Any development should respect the existing streetscapes. Also, I see nothing wrong with a riverwalk extension to link India Point Park, the (hopefully) future pedestrian bridge, and Waterplace.

- Garris

This is the sort of thing I like to hear. I have no problem with the lots being developed, but after the construction of that big giant cube between South Main Street and Water Street, I'm very worried about any development on that side of the river. The condos on Federal Hill simply reinforce those concerns, because it illustrates very clearly that the city shows little or no interest in building in-scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

This is the sort of thing I like to hear.

Good... :lol:

...after the construction of that big giant cube between South Main Street and Water Street, I'm very worried about any development on that side of the river.

I actually don't have a big problem with the cube. I certainly wouldn't want a wall of them there, but as an isolated development close to downcity, it works for me. It's also fairly dramatic in that position, looking great from College Hill and several other vantage points. Its presense also keeps the river view from downtown looking South from just dwindling away to nothing other than industrial ports. It indicates there's still "city" there.

That said, it could have done a lot better with its streetscape, something that David Brussat is quite right that modern architecture hasn't done very well to date (including both the Disney Concert Hall in LA and the Seattle Public Library, both of which I've visited in the last year).

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

I'm not just here to argue with you, I promise. I'm just very, VERY concerned with this city's originality. I've seen lots of really bad things happening lately.

care to share what's really bad? if the box you were talking about was the building hemenway's is in, i kind of like it and don't find it terribly hideous. it's different, but not a complete eyesore.

do you have a problem with modern architecture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

You know I love those maps Cotuit :wub: . As usual, a good map is worth a thousand words.

I've increasingly been calling all of those surface lots abutting 195 "The Neutral Zone." Even if the 195 land is perfectly developed, it still won't connect the JD to downtown until that parking district is dealt with.

Is there a particular reason the RISD lots are named the Plantation Parcel? Just curious...

Also, the municipal parking lot that Providence was considering for the Courthouse would be on the parking SW of the building, correct? That would be a nice location to serve the entire new 195 district...

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.