RUMOR: New Financial District Tower?

[Pseudo_Work]

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?

Not all modern architecture, no. I do, however, have a problem with unoriginality, and the construction of modern architecture solely for the sake of modernity. I also have a bit of a problem with modern architecture in primarily historic cities (it rarely works). Didn't the 60s already teach us that lesson once? And aren't we in fact still cleaning up the mess it left behind? Hasn't the renaissance taught us that modernity doesn't have to look like a glass box?

As someone on here already said about the new building on Dyer Street, and Gtech, they look like outdated buildings that already exist in other cities. How is that new, or exciting? How does it compliment a highly historic city that's been highly praised for adaptive reuse and sensitive design?

[Cotuit]

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

I don't know the genesis of the name, I believe that entire block is known as Plantations, and the lot is called the Plantations Lot. I'm assuming it has something to do with the Plantations in the state name, and refers to some historic something that used to be on the river there.

[runawayjim]

Not all modern architecture, no. I do, however, have a problem with unoriginality, and the construction of modern architecture solely for the sake of modernity. I also have a bit of a problem with modern architecture in primarily historic cities (it rarely works). Didn't the 60s already teach us that lesson once? And aren't we in fact still cleaning up the mess it left behind? Hasn't the renaissance taught us that modernity doesn't have to look like a glass box?

As someone on here already said about the new building on Dyer Street, and Gtech, they look like outdated buildings that already exist in other cities. How is that new, or exciting? How does it compliment a highly historic city that's been highly praised for adaptive reuse and sensitive design?

i think gtech works well where it is. it reflects the historic buildings... literally. seriously though, it might not be the most original of buildings, but do we need every building to be original? it fits the area quite well and looks better each day they add more to it. i, personally, can't wait until it's finished.

and i don't think we necessarily have to have every new building be a completely original design.

[mental757]

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.

OK, a little help for the dummy here: what's a '28 permit' and can someone map out where the people's bank is???

[runawayjim]

refers to some historic something that used to be on the river there.

a plantation?

[Cotuit]

I do, however, have a problem with unoriginality, and the construction of modern architecture solely for the sake of modernity.

Isn't historical recreation for the sake of historical recreation in itself unoriginal?

Didn't the 60s already teach us that lesson once?

While there is much of what was built in the 60s that I wouldn't get excited about building now, there are certainly examples from that decade of buildings that work, even here in Providence. I think the buildings in the Cathedral Square area actually create an interesting tableau. The biggest mistakes of the 60s were the way things were built to be self containted and removed from their surroundings, that's were Cathedral Square really falls down. If it were meticulous recreations of 18th century design, it would still fail based on it's relation to it's surroundings.

As someone on here already said about the new building on Dyer Street, and Gtech, they look like outdated buildings that already exist in other cities. How is that new, or exciting? How does it compliment a highly historic city that's been highly praised for adaptive reuse and sensitive design?

We could do historical recreations that would look like historic recreations that can be found across New England, such as the ones of Portsmouth posted earlier (in this thread?). No one is suggesting we stop adaptive reuse, or that we can't have designs that compliment and emulate the existing historic structures in the city. I fail to see how celebrating and cherishing our heritage, and looking forward and embracing the future have to be mutually exclusive. I look at parts of England and Scandinavia, and especially Barcelona (after a recent visit) and am loving the dynamic created by the juxtaposition of the old and new. I don't want to live in a museum, if I did I could move to Portsmouth.

[Pseudo_Work]

i think gtech works well where it is. it reflects the historic buildings... literally. seriously though, it might not be the most original of buildings, but do we need every building to be original? it fits the area quite well and looks better each day they add more to it. i, personally, can't wait until it's finished.

and i don't think we necessarily have to have every new building be a completely original design.

That's just a way of justifying ugly buildings. The new Westin I like, the mall I don't mind, and i've come to terms with 110, but enough is enough. We're working against the very reason people come here.

[Cotuit]

can someone map out where the people's bank is???

The building CVS is in in Kennedy Plaza. It was to be a condo conversion, but that project failed (or so we thought).

the mall I don't mind

Are you saying the mall is modern? If you want historic recreations, that's what you're going to get.

[runawayjim]

That's just a way of justifying ugly buildings. The new Westin I like, the mall I don't mind, and i've come to terms with 110, but enough is enough. We're working against the very reason people come here.

the mall is historic re-creation for just that reason. the new westin is nice, i like that building the more i see it (or renders). but i am not really a fan at all of the current westin tower.

110 is gonna look great and preserves part of an actual historic building... joining the old with the new.

so what is the very reason people come here? i thought it was because it's a great, vibrant city... i didn't think it was because of the buildings...

[Pseudo_Work]

the mall is historic re-creation for just that reason. the new westin is nice, i like that building the more i see it (or renders). but i am not really a fan at all of the current westin tower.

110 is gonna look great and preserves part of an actual historic building... joining the old with the new.

so what is the very reason people come here? i thought it was because it's a great, vibrant city... i didn't think it was because of the buildings...

Because it's something different - it looks and feels different than other cities. Very few places have the unusual history or character that Providence has*, and I'm not necessarily saying we should make it into a museum, just that we can afford to be a bit smarter about how/where we build. I think there's rarely an excuse to demolish anything in a city that's as riddled with vacant lots as this one is, and when we do build, the design has to be modeled on a number of different levels. It's nowhere near as clean cut here as it is in lots of cities.

*If it weren't for this, the people who made this place "vibrant" again wouldn't have started coming back here in the first place. Why do you think Hartford is such a desolate place?

[runawayjim]

Because it's something different - it looks and feels different than other cities. Very few places have the unusual history or character that Providence has*, and I'm not necessarily saying we should make it into a museum, just that we can afford to be a bit smarter about how/where we build. I think there's rarely an excuse to demolish anything in a city that's as riddled with vacant lots as this one is, and when we do build, the design has to be modeled on a number of different levels. It's nowhere near as clean cut here as it is in lots of cities.

*If it weren't for this, the people who made this place "vibrant" again wouldn't have started coming back here in the first place. Why do you think Hartford is such a desolate place?

you haven't been to hartford in a while, huh? while i'm not the biggest fan of hartford, it's certainly not desolate.

[Pseudo_Work]

you haven't been to hartford in a while, huh? while i'm not the biggest fan of hartford, it's certainly not desolate.

I suppose you're right - there do have to be people around in order for you to get mugged in the afternoon.

[Gusterfell]

Historic architecture or no, downtown Providence was pretty desolate and crime-ridden as recently as a decade or two ago.

[webbage]

I fail to see how celebrating and cherishing our heritage, and looking forward and embracing the future have to be mutually exclusive.

Amen, Cotuit!

Providence has a great deal of historic charm to it, no doubt, but I don't get the mentality that EVERYTHING has to look historic or look exactly the same as Providence's historic buildings. If everything is a historic recreation, well, it just makes the real history look bland. I don't want glass boxes surrounding Providence, but I think the city needs a nice mix of old looks and modern, and I think 110, Gtech, and E@B will provide this balance.

[Garris]

No Hartford vs Providence rhetoric, please... We've been down that road...

Because it's something different - it looks and feels different than other cities. Very few places have the unusual history or character that Providence has...

Absolutely... It's one of the reasons I'm here, for example. There's a character and charm to the place which is absent almost, well, everywhere else in America, in large part because of how much conservation has been done here.

But part of that charm for me is just that old/new contrast. Without the new, we'd be Portsmouth, and I wouldn't be a fraction as interested. Coming down Angell St and seeing the Westin and G-tech facades contrasted with Chuch spires and cupolas. Or seeing the cube building contrasted with the gold dome across the street. Each on its its own might be pretty or interesting, but the contrast is striking and dynamic.

The problem with any type of orthodoxy (religious, professional, architectural, etc) is the assumption that perfection has been achieved and all that follows should mirror and glorify what already is. That's the funny thing about the anti-modern architecture/preservation argument.

There's over 200 years of architecture here. At what point in history should the line have been drawn at "perfect?"

- Should the Turk's Head never have been built because it was taller than the 3-4 floor merchantile buildings that it shadowed? It certainly was "bold" in its time (look at historic photos, it sticks out in its height and style like a middle finger thrust into the air). It also wasn't at all contextual with the Arcade...

- Should the Superman Building never have gotten beyond planning since it was so out of scale for Washington St and was a monolithic structure that wiped out several smaller buildings?

- The First Baptist must have blocked someone's view...

- Etc, etc, etc...

That's where history is so instructive. Looking at old photos and illustrations, so much of what we consider "historic" and "character filled" today actually replaced completely different looking and feeling neighborhoods before them. The Washington St of 1940 had to displace the Washington St of 1840, which itself displaced something else. Where do you draw the line and place the city in amber, making anything else new bow to a similar style, height, and scope?

There are lots of "theme" towns like that scattered throughout New England. Stonington, Concord, Newburyport, Portsmouth, Mystic, etc. I agree with Cotuit in that I view Providence as still being an evolving, vibrant place...

...we can afford to be a bit smarter about how/where we build.

Absolutely, 100% true, although everyone may disagree on the definition of "smarter."

I think there's rarely an excuse to demolish anything in a city that's as riddled with vacant lots as this one is, and when we do build, the design has to be modeled on a number of different levels. It's nowhere near as clean cut here as it is in lots of cities.

Well, I of course agree 100% that the surface lots need to go, and that may in fact need to be Providence's #1 priority in its master planning/zoning process for the next 5-10 years for the city to smartly move forward. It doesn't mean that something can't or shouldn't be demolished if the situation presents itself for good development.

Your point about needing cleaner cut lines is 100% true too, and here's where the upcoming planning and zoning process comes into play again. It's all about policy.

The wonderful Inga Saffron, architecture critic for the Philly Inquirer, complains about the same thing about Philly all the time, and she always turns to Vancouver as a model (which, BTW, if you haven't been, is a city that does great preservation and is bold enough to put it right next to strikingly modern structures in a way that's wonderful).

I finish with her description on her blog of Vancouver's process, which should be a rallying cry for us too:

"How does Vancouver do it?

Vancouver has doubled its downtown population in the past 20 years, mainly by building tall condo towers. But instead of being stressed by the rapid growth and high-density construction, the city has become more livable, more interesting and more fun than ever. Credit goes to the city's director of planning, Larry Beasely.

Beasley, who gave a talk Monday at the University of Pennsylvania, is a stickler for hands-on planning. "Having a developer present something to us and having us react - that simply doesn't work," he said. His department has spent countless hours working out design standards, so developers know in advance what will fly and what won't.

Here's a quick list of what Vancouver planners demand as a starting point:

-Elegant, thin towers, with floor plates no bigger than 6,800 square feet.

-To ease the transition to the street, most condo towers need to have a low-rise base comprised of townhouses, shops or low-rise apartments.

-Towers must be placed at wide intervals to preserve views of Vancouver's stunning waterfront and mountain scenery.

-ALL, yes ALL, parking must be underground. Imagine that in a downtown surrounded by water. There are dozens of new condo towers and not one of them sits on a parking deck.

-Between 20 and 33 percent of all new condo units must be set aside as affordable housing.

-Whenever a neighborhood begins to experience a building boom, city planners rush in to assess the need for parks, bike paths, playgrounds, schools and daycare.

Coming from Philadelphia, it sounds impossible that a city could demand so much and get developers to comply. But it works, Beasley said, because the demands are consistent. He also believes that good urban design begets good cities. "People will not be drawn to cities that are ugly or uncomfortable. They'll vote with their feet," he said.

Right now, Vancouver's downtown population is 85,000, exactly the same as Philadelphia's Center City. Wanna bet which city pulls ahead?"

- Garris

[Statesman]

There's over 200 years of architecture here. At what point in history should the line have been drawn at "perfect?"

- Should the Turk's Head never have been built because it was taller than the 3-4 floor merchantile buildings that it shadowed? It certainly was "bold" in its time (look at historic photos, it sticks out in its height and style like a middle finger thrust into the air). It also wasn't at all contextual with the Arcade...

- Should the Superman Building never have gotten beyond planning since it was so out of scale for Washington St and was a monolithic structure that wiped out several smaller buildings?

- The First Baptist must have blocked someone's view...

- Etc, etc, etc...

Brilliant argument, I totally agree.

There's something about Providence that draws people to it, and when they go home and spread the word, others are motivated to visit. That "thing" doesnt have to be just one element...

[Pseudo_Work]

No Hartford vs Providence rhetoric, please... We've been down that road...

Absolutely... It's one of the reasons I'm here, for example. There's a character and charm to the place which is absent almost, well, everywhere else in America, in large part because of how much conservation has been done here.

But part of that charm for me is just that old/new contrast. Without the new, we'd be Portsmouth, and I wouldn't be a fraction as interested. Coming down Angell St and seeing the Westin and G-tech facades contrasted with Chuch spires and cupolas. Or seeing the cube building contrasted with the gold dome across the street. Each on its its own might be pretty or interesting, but the contrast is striking and dynamic.

The problem with any type of orthodoxy (religious, professional, architectural, etc) is the assumption that perfection has been achieved and all that follows should mirror and glorify what already is. That's the funny thing about the anti-modern architecture/preservation argument.

There's over 200 years of architecture here. At what point in history should the line have been drawn at "perfect?"

- Should the Turk's Head never have been built because it was taller than the 3-4 floor merchantile buildings that it shadowed? It certainly was "bold" in its time (look at historic photos, it sticks out in its height and style like a middle finger thrust into the air). It also wasn't at all contextual with the Arcade...

- Should the Superman Building never have gotten beyond planning since it was so out of scale for Washington St and was a monolithic structure that wiped out several smaller buildings?

- The First Baptist must have blocked someone's view...

- Etc, etc, etc...

That's where history is so instructive. Looking at old photos and illustrations, so much of what we consider "historic" and "character filled" today actually replaced completely different looking and feeling neighborhoods before them. The Washington St of 1940 had to displace the Washington St of 1840, which itself displaced something else. Where do you draw the line and place the city in amber, making anything else new bow to a similar style, height, and scope?

There are lots of "theme" towns like that scattered throughout New England. Stonington, Concord, Newburyport, Portsmouth, Mystic, etc. I agree with Cotuit in that I view Providence as still being an evolving, vibrant place...

Absolutely, 100% true, although everyone may disagree on the definition of "smarter."

Well, I of course agree 100% that the surface lots need to go, and that may in fact need to be Providence's #1 priority in its master planning/zoning process for the next 5-10 years for the city to smartly move forward. It doesn't mean that something can't or shouldn't be demolished if the situation presents itself for good development.

Your point about needing cleaner cut lines is 100% true too, and here's where the upcoming planning and zoning process comes into play again. It's all about policy.

The wonderful Inga Saffron, architecture critic for the Philly Inquirer, complains about the same thing about Philly all the time, and she always turns to Vancouver as a model (which, BTW, if you haven't been, is a city that does great preservation and is bold enough to put it right next to strikingly modern structures in a way that's wonderful).

I finish with her description on her blog of Vancouver's process, which should be a rallying cry for us too:

"How does Vancouver do it?

Vancouver has doubled its downtown population in the past 20 years, mainly by building tall condo towers. But instead of being stressed by the rapid growth and high-density construction, the city has become more livable, more interesting and more fun than ever. Credit goes to the city's director of planning, Larry Beasely.

Beasley, who gave a talk Monday at the University of Pennsylvania, is a stickler for hands-on planning. "Having a developer present something to us and having us react - that simply doesn't work," he said. His department has spent countless hours working out design standards, so developers know in advance what will fly and what won't.

Here's a quick list of what Vancouver planners demand as a starting point:

-Elegant, thin towers, with floor plates no bigger than 6,800 square feet.

-To ease the transition to the street, most condo towers need to have a low-rise base comprised of townhouses, shops or low-rise apartments.

-Towers must be placed at wide intervals to preserve views of Vancouver's stunning waterfront and mountain scenery.

-ALL, yes ALL, parking must be underground. Imagine that in a downtown surrounded by water. There are dozens of new condo towers and not one of them sits on a parking deck.

-Between 20 and 33 percent of all new condo units must be set aside as affordable housing.

-Whenever a neighborhood begins to experience a building boom, city planners rush in to assess the need for parks, bike paths, playgrounds, schools and daycare.

Coming from Philadelphia, it sounds impossible that a city could demand so much and get developers to comply. But it works, Beasley said, because the demands are consistent. He also believes that good urban design begets good cities. "People will not be drawn to cities that are ugly or uncomfortable. They'll vote with their feet," he said.

Right now, Vancouver's downtown population is 85,000, exactly the same as Philadelphia's Center City. Wanna bet which city pulls ahead?"

- Garris

I definitely do understand what you're saying, and yes it does make a lot of sense. I've actually often wondered what people thought of the superman building when it was first built - it must have seemed so garish overproduced. It's just very concerning to me. I grew up here all my life, and especially being away in school at the moment I feel less and less a part of the whole process, which is endlessly frustrating, becuase I care about it more than anything.

I suppose, like most Rhode Islanders, I have an innate distrust of politicians, and outsiders.

[Frankie811]

I wonder if this is the rumor

http://www.bidclerk.com/projects/projectDe...rojectID=272601

This is a massive project

Working plans call for the construction of a 2.3 million-square-foot mixed-use development that will contain 348,000 square feet of office space, 93,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and 657 residential units. Plans also call for an 87,000-square-foot hotel and 3,300 parking spaces.

[Frankie811]

I wonder if this is the rumor

http://www.bidclerk.com/projects/projectDe...rojectID=272601

This is a massive project

Working plans call for the construction of a 2.3 million-square-foot mixed-use development that will contain 348,000 square feet of office space, 93,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and 657 residential units. Plans also call for an 87,000-square-foot hotel and 3,300 parking spaces.

If built, this project will be almost twice the size of Providence Place Mall.

[KRC]

OK, a little help for the dummy here: what's a '28 permit' and can someone map out where the people's bank is???

Construction/Improvements.

It's the same building CVS is in on Westminster Street. They seem to be finally working on the upper floors.

By the way, you're not a dummy.

[Frankie811]

I wonder if this is the rumor

http://www.bidclerk.com/projects/projectDe...rojectID=272601

This is a massive project

Working plans call for the construction of a 2.3 million-square-foot mixed-use development that will contain 348,000 square feet of office space, 93,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and 657 residential units. Plans also call for an 87,000-square-foot hotel and 3,300 parking spaces.

At first I thought this might be the Dynamo project, but the numbers are all wrong. I wish I knew a way to translate these numbers into stories/height.

[KRC]

That's just a way of justifying ugly buildings. The new Westin I like, the mall I don't mind, and i've come to terms with 110, but enough is enough. We're working against the very reason people come here.

Okay, I don't get your point. Please let me explain.

The Westin replaced a run down bus station, right? The mall replaced an abandoned school and parking lots, no? 110 is replacing an ugly glass building, a parking lot and an 1950's addition that while it looked okay was completely unusable. How in the world to you get your conclusion that those examples work against why I (people) came here? G-tech was once train tracks, as was Waterplace. E&B will replace an abandoned and ugly 1940's safety complex, etc., etc.

Now, if anyone of these projects were, say, replacing the old ProJo building on Westminster or something like that, then I'd agree. But they aren't. How is anything going on in the city right now working against what's here?

Enough is enough? No, no my friend. I say things are moving at the right pace at the right time and in the right places. Besides, wouldn't you agree that it's great that we can have this type of discussion rather than one where nothing was happening in the city at all?

[Frankie811]

Okay, I don't get your point. Please let me explain.

The Westin replaced a run down bus station, right?

No, the Westin replaced a surface parking lot. The convention center replaced the former Bonanza Bus terminal, which I wouldn't exactly describe as run down.

[KRC]

No, the Westin replaced a surface parking lot. The convention center replaced the former Bonanza Bus terminal, which I wouldn't exactly describe as run down.

My boyfriend has some pictures of the place back in the late 70's or early 80's and it didn't exactly look well kept.

[Frankie811]

I wonder if this is the rumor

http://www.bidclerk.com/projects/projectDe...rojectID=272601

This is a massive project

Working plans call for the construction of a 2.3 million-square-foot mixed-use development that will contain 348,000 square feet of office space, 93,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and 657 residential units. Plans also call for an 87,000-square-foot hotel and 3,300 parking spaces.

This project has me thinking, dreaming, wondering and speculating as to what to expect. I'm thinking of three towers anchored by a massive parking structure. But where downcity is there enough land to build this monstrosity?