Jump to content

RUMOR: United Way site, Wayland Square


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have a source in Wayland Square who has been fairly reliable about issues there who told me that he heard fourth-hand that CVS might be interested in the Wayland Square United Way building at the corner of Wayland and Waterman after they vacate. CVS apparently is unhappy with their limited surface parking behind their S. Angell location and would like to move to the United Way site since that property already has copious off street parking.

If this is true, that would really be a shame. If CVS is truly as dedicated to the community as their PR voice would like you to believe, then they'd leave that site alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, that would really be a shame. If CVS is truly as dedicated to the community as their PR voice would like you to believe, then they'd leave that site alone.

you make them out to be killing babies

stores cannot do this, lol

its not a toxic waste dump

if they own a property they should have final say, freedom to pursue happiness in a way

they have the right to build stores that make money

drive-thru's increase profits, which, in the end, is money back to investors, who, in a sense, the same people who can actually afford to live on the darn hill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make up your mind! double standards... lol

that said, i dunno how to post this pic, but i took it of the CVS across from the charles street T stop on beacon hill... you guys would love it, big windows, bricks, good signage n everything! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they own a property they should have final say, freedom to pursue happiness in a way

they have the right to build stores that make money

drive-thru's increase profits, which, in the end, is money back to investors, who, in a sense, the same people who can actually afford to live on the darn hill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! make up your mind! double standards... lol

The city has a right to tell the property owner what they can and can't build. If it was all about profit and the property owner could do what they wish, then why not build a nuclear plant in Wayland Square, that would be profitable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the CVS across from the charles street T stop on beacon hill... you guys would love it, big windows, bricks, good signage n everything! lol

But does CVS own that building or do they just rent/lease space in it? Did they design that building? That's probably what would be happening here... Totally different situation...

I'm certainly not anti-commerce. CVS being here with a pharmacy and being walkable is one of the basic necessities available that makes Wayland Square a great and convenient place to live. I think they can actually do a drive through very easily and unobtrusively there (I never thought of that, thanks for pointing it out, Jen).

But in the end, it's the same question that afflicts all Providence developments, from Sierra Suites to CVS... Are we willing to settle for the banal, the bland, and the cookie-cutter? Or will we demand something aspirational because we think Providence deserves it?

That site already houses one of the most handsome and well kept commercial buildings on the East Side and, if I were to choose any site on the East Side for a prototype New Urbanist landmark building to move the East Side closer to an urban model, it would be that one.

Are we OK civically with all of that being replaced by a one story building with paper'ed out windows, drive-through, fake shutters, otherwise no detailing, and some colonial-eque lamps near the doors that you'd find on a CVS anywhere from Scottsdale to Natick?

If the answer is yes, I'm not sure that's a place I want to live...

Yes, I know there are some nice CVS's in NY, DC, Boston, but when it comes to PVD chain pharmacies seem to strongly prefer the suburban model outfitted with plastic shutters, Dryvit mouldings etc. in order to win approval from people who are unsophisticated when it comes to architecture...

Lately, this has gone along with the trend, a half-hearted nod to new urbanism... to build to the street on one corner and then have a massive parking lot on the other.

Exactly. The Hope Street CVS is a perfect example of the damage they can do... I'm sure it must have sounded great at first. Built to the sidewalk, street fronting entrance, another retail outlet in the building on the sidewalk, neighborhood contextual siding, off-street parking...

What happened? Their street fronting entrance is at the corner so it also faces the parking lot, there is a huge expanse of windowless, featureless wall until you reach the Garrison Chocolates retail space, which is tiny (nearly invisible) at the other end of the building... Their parking lot is enormous and creates a big gap in the streetscape along Hope (although they did try to pretty it up with trees and a brick wall, but it doesn't hide what it is and doesn't fill the hole... I'm afraid the parking at 333 Atwell's will have the same effect).

What I don't get is why the tease? CVS, Brooks, et al obviously knows what true urban design is to be able to try to fake it well enough to get by communities... How much more expensive it is to do the real thing?

This seems like something that could be relatively easy to fight, given the demographics of the Wayland Square neighborhood.

Yup, this is something the folks here know how to do well. I fear they'll settle for the fake shutters/colonial lamps/siding thing, though, as I don't think the folks here have decided they'd want anything more urban than that...

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that makes me hopeful is that the United Way building clearly has architectural merit and is also in pretty good shape. If threatened, it could easily wind up on the Preservation Society's endangered list, which would pose a serious PR problem for CVS and/or the developer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why the tease? CVS, Brooks, et al obviously knows what true urban design is to be able to try to fake it well enough to get by communities... How much more expensive it is to do the real thing?

Yup, this is something the folks here know how to do well. I fear they'll settle for the fake shutters/colonial lamps/siding thing, though, as I don't think the folks here have decided they'd want anything more urban than that...

Because Providence still doesn't have enough foot traffic to cater to anyone but drivers. So the point is to make it easy for someone driving a car to identify the store, identify the parking, and get back out of the store. It is a marketing decision, not a construction cost decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i honestly don't know why the pharmacy is in teh back of the store to begin with. i hate having to go all the way to teh back to pick up my drugs. i think they should be designed with the pharmacy on one side of the store and line the back with the grocery section. of course i'm sure there was some big study to determine how the store was set up...

The pharamacy is in the back so you have to walk through an aisle of merchandise going in and out. I often remember I need shampoo or something when walking through the aisles to pick of a script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Providence still doesn't have enough foot traffic to cater to anyone but drivers. So the point is to make it easy for someone driving a car to identify the store, identify the parking, and get back out of the store. It is a marketing decision, not a construction cost decision.

I see your point, brick. It's also ironic since most of the people at Providence Tomorrow last night cited the city's walkability as a major positive advantage. One more reason for the comp plan revision to include such things as encouraging more retail with residences upstairs to increase the density in neighborhood business districts and increase foot traffic.

There is a better way to do parking than a building set back far from the street and a large, bare asphalt surface. Why not develop the property so the entrance to the parking lot is in the rear of the property with people entering and exiting on to a small side street. For example, develop the block so that you have building fronts on all of Wayland between Waterman and Seekonk. Maybe build and another attached structure on Waterman and Seekonk directly east of the United Way building to further fill-in the block, but don't extend the building all the way back to the rear of the property line. Then, you can insert a curb cutout on Seekonk between that tan building and the new building described above which people would then use as access to a parking lot hidden in the interior of the property by the buildings which front the main streets of Wayland and Waterman. I hope I explained this clearly, but I used to live near just such a setup and it seemed to work well, a necessary evil to accommodate parking but maintains the character of a dense neighborhood business district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Providence still doesn't have enough foot traffic to cater to anyone but drivers. So the point is to make it easy for someone driving a car to identify the store, identify the parking, and get back out of the store. It is a marketing decision, not a construction cost decision.

I see your point, brick. It's also ironic since most of the people at Providence Tomorrow last night cited the city's walkability as a major positive advantage. One more reason for the comp plan revision to include such things as encouraging more retail with residences upstairs to increase the density in neighborhood business districts and increase foot traffic.

This is, of course, a chicken and egg issue. Is the foot traffic not there because a walkable retail critical mass don't yet exist (in my opinion this is the West End and parts of the East Side), or because there isn't the residential population density (to a degree, Federal Hill), or both (downcity)? With the exceptions of a few rare places that historically had density and population (Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc) in sufficient amounts to maintain walkable lifestyles even into the modern automotive age, today, if a neighborhood is to be walkable, it has to be a conscious development decision.

You can try to make Rt 2 as walkable as you want (sidewalks, mass transit, benches, etc) but the style of buildings there just will never make it desirable. This type of big box retail is the modern default.

With Providence, it doesn't work to just say that the foot traffic isn't there so what's the point of urban style development... Providence has the potential to be fully walkable from one side of the city to another... How many municipalities could do that?

This will have to be a conscious decision on the part of the city and its residents in master plans, zoning, etc to create that environment, and every single project will have the potential to add or subtract from that goal.

Why not develop the property so the entrance to the parking lot is in the rear of the property with people entering and exiting on to a small side street.

If I were king of Wayland Sq development, that's what I would do.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be clear, my answer was in response to Garris's question of why they choose not to build in this way.

I am sure they have reams of marketing data which tells them the best way to attract customers, and until that data says "build a store that integrates with the urban fabric etc. etc." they aren't just going to do it. So it is up to the planning board to get them to do those types of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to note that this is a rumor...CVS is not imminent at that site.

United Way owns the building, and is looking to sell in order to both get the maximum return for their endowment AND to move to a location in the city that "walks the walk" with their mission, something being in Wayland Square isn't really doing...

Knowing this, and knowing how much that site would be worth with a primary residential use on upper floors, I would be shocked if it was sold to CVS for ONLY a CVS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't find that encouraging at all. In a different context, I might consider it an improvement. Here, it does nothing to answer the objections raised about putting a suburban-style store in an urban setting.

Exactly. If CVS wants to build a sidewalk fronting three story, multiuse building with itself, possibly another business, and apartments on top with off street parking behind the building, I'll be the first there to cheer them on!

What he said. If they insist on having a bunch of surface parking, let's at least force them to put it to use in a multi-story, mixed-use structure. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

United Way owns the building, and is looking to sell in order to both get the maximum return for their endowment...

Knowing this, and knowing how much that site would be worth with a primary residential use on upper floors, I would be shocked if it was sold to CVS for ONLY a CVS.

I really, really hope you're right. My original source is usually (but not always) pretty spot on, and I doubted this when he told me, especially when I didn't hear it anywhere else. I said the same thing to him you mentioned above, but he replied that the Wayland CVS does really well but that they think the Brooks near East Side Market does even proportionately better. He said that CVS has the deep pockets to buy the United Way site and that rationality, in such wars as the pharmacies are in, often goes out the window...

I held onto the rumor for a while, doubting it, but decided to post it and throw it out there when the other person told me about the surveyors.

Again, I'd think the property would have much more value as a multiuse site, and hope you're right and my source is wrong.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really, really hope you're right. My original source is usually (but not always) pretty spot on, and I doubted this when he told me, especially when I didn't hear it anywhere else. I said the same thing to him you mentioned above, but he replied that the Wayland CVS does really well but that they think the Brooks near East Side Market does even proportionately better. He said that CVS has the deep pockets to buy the United Way site and that rationality, in such wars as the pharmacies are in, often goes out the window...

I held onto the rumor for a while, doubting it, but decided to post it and throw it out there when the other person told me about the surveyors.

Again, I'd think the property would have much more value as a multiuse site, and hope you're right and my source is wrong.

- Garris

I would suggest that CVS considers this an A+ site and would pay an exceptional amount for it. It is an incredibaly vivible location for someone like CVS. However, I agree with everyone who feels whatever happens here needs to improve the urbanism of Wayland Sq and a free standing CVS goes the other way. Something needs to be done to prevent this from happening. Mixed-use is the future.

As far as where UW is going, it seems they may be going to the West side but the final decision has become the longest and most torturous decision in years. They can, without question, become a transformational force wherever they end up. Hopefully we will all know soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i like what dunkin donuts did on their smith st location by la salle. it fits in really nicely with the streetscape and didn't make it all dunkified.

Yea you're right, i wish it were something else though considering the neighborhood landmark it replaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

"RI Acquisitions has not yet decided what to do with the United Way building, according to the company, but retail and office uses are most likely. They would not say whether the building would be knocked down or reused."

It's unsafe!! People will die! Knock it down!! ;)

- Garris

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.