Downcity Living

[Pseudo_Work]

@ Cosmo1

I read the article today and felt you were cast in a less favorable light than the owner of Murphy's.

The incessant noise that you put up with on a regular basis, night-after-night is completely different from the periodic noises that you'd expect in any urban setting like police sirens, people walking by or even a street festival - really apples and oranges.

In addition to the noise, when you then add the food smells from the kitchen, cigarette smoke from the patrons smoking outside (and most likely talking loudly as well), I don't know how you managed to put up with it.

I live on Broadway and hear sirens, traffic and people fairly consistently, but for the most part, I don't really notice it. But the one thing I do notice is the low, rhythmic THUMP THUMP THUMP of my upstairs neighbor's sound system. Fortunately, a phone call or knock on the door takes care of the problem right away. Otherwise, it would get old real fast.

I wish you all the best and hope that this situation gets resolved soon.

[cosmo1]

Well said. I also think it's very noble of you, cosmo, to actively engage in the dialogue about this here, rather than letting yourself remain an otherwise anonymous complaint. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen more in order to generate resolutions between commercial and residential downtown. Kudos.

[TheAnk]

Condo living in itself is a strange dichotomy; ownership of your own piece of the pie but with common ownership that lessens your right to personal privacy and choice.. cosmo made decisions to live based on rule that were given to her at the time as the rule.. I see that the opin of the board is to toughen up, this is city living...

But Murphy's is affecting her life, and while I disagree with her stance that everyone has the right to a quiet, scent free abode, I do agree that decisions like this must be put to a vote by the association, which replaces the owners individual rights and replaces them as commune rights..

I mean jesus, that terrorist organization the WBNA chimes in on things in all surrounding hoods and they are supposedly for the Broadway area and the "armory" aka West End... The condo association doesnt even get to vote on what business lives below them in THE SAME BUILDING??? Thats insane..

Because a home above a deli sports bar is worth less than a home above a martini piano bar.. No matter how you want to slice it.. Its that simple... Regardless of how people may judge these condo buyers, its not relative..

[cosmo1]

Condo living in itself is a strange dichotomy; ownership of your own piece of the pie but with common ownership that lessens your right to personal privacy and choice.. cosmo made decisions to live based on rule that were given to her at the time as the rule.. I see that the opin of the board is to toughen up, this is city living...

But Murphy's is affecting her life, and while I disagree with her stance that everyone has the right to a quiet, scent free abode, I do agree that decisions like this must be put to a vote by the association, which replaces the owners individual rights and replaces them as commune rights..

I mean jesus, that terrorist organization the WBNA chimes in on things in all surrounding hoods and they are supposedly for the Broadway area and the "armory" aka West End... The condo association doesnt even get to vote on what business lives below them in THE SAME BUILDING??? Thats insane..

Because a home above a deli sports bar is worth less than a home above a martini piano bar.. No matter how you want to slice it.. Its that simple... Regardless of how people may judge these condo buyers, its not relative..

[cosmo1]

Condo Living does have its imperfections however in this case, there are condominium rules that have to be enforced that clearly address all these issues. They are not being upheld. We were here before Murphy's and I disagree, as this was not part of what was going to happen here. Everyone is entitled to serenity in their home otherwise we would not have bought here. This has nothing to do with urban living. I am very familiar with the concept and issues surrounging urban living.

[cosmo1]

Well said. I also think it's very noble of you, cosmo, to actively engage in the dialogue about this here, rather than letting yourself remain an otherwise anonymous complaint. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen more in order to generate resolutions between commercial and residential downtown. Kudos.

[cosmo1]

I would like to respond to the article written about me in the Providence Journal on November 29th entitled Downtown Duel

The article makes me sound truly elitist. The bottom line is that everyone is entitled to the quiet enjoyment and sanctity of their home which should be odor and noise free regardless of price. This is not a class issue. It is not an urban or rural issue. This is a quality of life issue.

Mike Egan was quoted as saying "noone is having problems with Murphys", then who is Paul Shapiro?

Also, "there are growing pains with any new business and any mixed use building is going to have stuff like this." I totally, disagree because there are other mixed use retail spaces that do not inflict problems on the residents like this. Besides the condominium association, there are condominium documents which are clear and simple. It would clear up many existing issues. The condominium documents need to be enforced and they are not.

To clarify, the city noise issue, I expect that as I lived in Providence for two years before moving to The Cosmopolitan. What I do not expect are loud and boisterous patrons, the disrespect of not being a good neighbor and caring for others concerns.

The city has complicity in this as they had a meeting in which many issues surrounding this were misrepresented. Also, they were approached in a proper manner to try and resolve these conflicts. They chose to ignore this. It is incredulous that Rita Murphy thinks this is an isolated issue - this will happen to others.

Some of the residents feel this will bring negative publicity to the building. My answer: The appearance outdoors of the common areas complete with grease trails and over flowing garbage speaks volumes. Also, the odors travel through the elevator shaft and up the fire escape entrances.

The answer from my neighbor "to move up, high up and go home" clarifys everything. Well I am home and plan on staying home. The guy that plays the saxophone at night personifies city living; your issues do not. Cosmo 1

[KRC]

I would like to respond to the article written about me in the Providence Journal on November 29th entitled Downtown Duel

The article makes me sound truly elitist.

[cosmo1]

Hi cosmo! As a resident and active member of the downtown community and someone familiar with both you and Ruth, I found the article to be dead on accurate.

Cotuit, can we either change this thread name or delete it all together? We already have a Providence Press thread and I don't want this to get confused. cosmo1 should look to extend her 10 minutes of fame under a different thread name.

[Dan]

The article is here.

The bottom line is that everyone is entitled to the quiet enjoyment and sanctity of their home which should be odor and noise free regardless of price. This is not a class issue. It is not an urban or rural issue. This is a quality of life issue.

[runawayjim]

On the other hand, living in the city center is not, and will not ever be, noise free. Paying upwards of a million dollars doesn't give anyone the right to coerce other neighborhood stakeholders to fall in line with his or her ideals. If the streets were dark and quiet and the businesses all closed up, no one would ever want to live in Downcity at any price.

[quente]

Hi cosmo! As a resident and active member of the downtown community and someone familiar with both you and Ruth, I found the article to be dead on accurate.

Cotuit, can we either change this thread name or delete it all together? We already have a Providence Press thread and I don't want this to get confused. cosmo1 should look to extend her 10 minutes of fame under a different thread name.

[brick]

I'm not trying to be too much of a jerk here but I think it is clear that the problem is not with Murphy's, it is with the condo assoc. who misrepresented their property to cosmo1. At least if everything said is true, that is my interpretation. The problem here becomes what was written into the purchase agreement and what is written into the condo by-laws, etc. It would not surprise me if cosmo1 just became the latest in a long line of people to get screwed over by sellers/developers who will withhold information and/or outright lie (but not put it on paper) in order to drive up the sale price. This is a tactic as old as the first time two people used the barter system. I would consult a lawyer and see if there is a way to prove a breach of verbal contract (or written if it is in the paper), sell the unit, and sue for damages equalling the disparity in sale price, closing costs on a new place, and legal fees. There are times to use the court of public opinion and there are times to use the court of law, and I think your path is clear at this point.

[Cotuit]

Look into the "Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment." Someone was trying to post about it yesterday when UP decided to crash.

[jencoleslaw]

The Covenant of Quite Enjoyment. You guys can pile onto Cosmo all you want, but it doesn't maker her/him wrong and you right. The truth is, that unless Cosmo signed away his/her rights to quite enjoyment (a la the deed covenants that the city is requiring of folks who are living in old industrial mill spaces in old industrial mill neighborhoods), even if it is not implicit in the sales agreement, or the condo documents, the convenant of quite enjoyment is an implied right to all home dwellers.

When Cosmo bought that condo, there was a defunct piano bar on the first floor, and he/she was assured that it would stay a quiet piano bar in the future in that space. Are you people really telling me that you believe that Pelham House is the same as Murphy's? I bet Pelham House didn't even have a TV, never mind a jukebox, and I'm pretty sure they didn't do food service either. I am not saying one is better or worse for the city than the other (i was a regular at murphys when my office was downtown,) but for anyone to even hint at the idea that one bar is the same as another bar--that's just stupid, and you know it.

If Cosmo is having problems getting the city and or the police to enforce the ordinances that protect the covenant of quite enjoyment then it is no surprise that he/she is having trouble resolving this issue. I agree that the beef is absolutely with the condo association, but Cosmo has no leverage until he/she is able to prove that the covenant is being violated if no one will take the problem seriously.

I am disappointed at the piling on, and especially at the very notion that he/she should spend less time posting on UP and more time doing homework on her/his own situation. I have read a lot of crap on this board but honestly that was one of the most obnoxious things I have ever read. If this is anything like the reaction Cosmo is getting from the condo association, the city, the police and/or murphy's, then it is no surprise that he/she turns to a bunch of strangers on a message board for a little support.

[runawayjim]

while i understand cosmo's point of view, does murphy's not also get the benefit of quiet enjoyment, allowing them to use their space for which it was licensed? i got my info on the covenant from this site (which is british, so it could be different). that would, in effect, protect murphy's from the harassment of the condo dwellers above.

i understand this concept that home dwellers have this right, but if they choose to live somewhere where there's a lot of external noise, that's their choice. they cannot go and start telling the businesses that are already there to quiet down. this murphy's thing is a different story because the condo owners were there first.

[brick]

The Covenant of Quite Enjoyment. You guys can pile onto Cosmo all you want, but it doesn't maker her/him wrong and you right. The truth is, that unless Cosmo signed away his/her rights to quite enjoyment (a la the deed covenants that the city is requiring of folks who are living in old industrial mill spaces in old industrial mill neighborhoods), even if it is not implicit in the sales agreement, or the condo documents, the convenant of quite enjoyment is an implied right to all home dwellers.

[runawayjim]

However, I am less sure that the covenant applies to drunks and music. It is a colonial law that has been carried through and I think has more to do with disputes over the property and its use. In fact in this case I think Jim is right that Murphy's would actually have more rights than cosmo under the provisions of the covenant. (this is under the implied assumption that Murphy's is operating as normal and being disturbed by the condo owners). However, I am not a lawyer.

The fact remains that choosing sides with Murphy's or cosmo is irrelevant and foolish. The condo association/builder/whoever either willfully mispresented their intentions with the space or they made a mistake. Holding firm in the moral high ground (for any side) is not what will get the problem solved, IMO.

edit: linky magic

[cosmo1]

The Covenant of Quite Enjoyment. You guys can pile onto Cosmo all you want, but it doesn't maker her/him wrong and you right. The truth is, that unless Cosmo signed away his/her rights to quite enjoyment (a la the deed covenants that the city is requiring of folks who are living in old industrial mill spaces in old industrial mill neighborhoods), even if it is not implicit in the sales agreement, or the condo documents, the convenant of quite enjoyment is an implied right to all home dwellers.

When Cosmo bought that condo, there was a defunct piano bar on the first floor, and he/she was assured that it would stay a quiet piano bar in the future in that space. Are you people really telling me that you believe that Pelham House is the same as Murphy's? I bet Pelham House didn't even have a TV, never mind a jukebox, and I'm pretty sure they didn't do food service either. I am not saying one is better or worse for the city than the other (i was a regular at murphys when my office was downtown,) but for anyone to even hint at the idea that one bar is the same as another bar--that's just stupid, and you know it.

[quente]

I am disappointed at the piling on, and especially at the very notion that he/she should spend less time posting on UP and more time doing homework on her/his own situation. I have read a lot of crap on this board but honestly that was one of the most obnoxious things I have ever read. If this is anything like the reaction Cosmo is getting from the condo association, the city, the police and/or murphy's, then it is no surprise that he/she turns to a bunch of strangers on a message board for a little support.

[cosmo1]

[brick]

Thank you-somone finally gets it. Also, my issues are not of outside noise but of noise coming into my unit from the floorboards and walls below. Also, there are condominium bylaws that address these issues so I am perfectly, within my rights. A lot of comments have been posted by individuals that do not know the entire story. FYI, I never signed away my rights to quiet enjoyment. Compassion is a word that should be used. Cosmo1

[jencoleslaw]

I go to Murphy's about once every two years and can easily go elsewhere that one night, so I really have no dog in this race. But I am concerned about setting precedent and ending up with a downtown that basically turns off at 11 PM to appease residents.

[Griswald]

I think that high end residences can co-exist happily with restaurants and bars; and that these different uses and others NEED to co-exist happily in order for a downtown area to be successful. As Cosmo stated, the noise is coming from within the building, not from outside. I'm sure she understands that to have completely quiet surroundings, buying a condo in downtown Providence would not be a good choice. That's what Burriville is for. But when you spend that much money for a condo like this, you should expect a certain level of quality that would prevent the issues at hand. Maybe when the building was renovated, the owners did not anticipate a louder bar as the ground tenant, so they did not spend enough money on sound insulation.

There are ways to soundproof a building properly, so that loud music including bass sounds will not travel through floors or walls. I'm sure there are ways to store trash and ventilate buildings so that smells do not escape to unwanted areas.

I do not think it's fair to jump on Cosmo's case, accusing her of complaining about a situation where "she knew what she was getting in to." Moving next to an airport is not the same as moving into a new luxury residence that may have a restaurant or bar (not implying loud music) on the first floor. I think it's fair to assume that by moving into the Cosmopolitan, there will be some normal street noise on a regular basis, but the floors and walls won't be thumping, and the air will not smell like grease and food constantly. I'm young (mid-20s) and I sleep soundly and love living in a city and dealing with all that comes with it (including getting broken into). I'm trying to see this situation from Cosmo's point of view however, which a lot of people on this board are not.

I know that an old building is harder to insulate and soundproof than a new one - so either the owner/developer underestimated the extent to which the building needed to be insulated, or the group selling the condos did not properly price the lower units or advertise honestly. I know that in today's market, a developer is not going to "over-build" something very often - so it is understandable that the level of soundproofing needed was not estimated correctly. I also know that you do not advertise a place by saying "Luxury condos right above busy bar/restaurant," but creative embellishment can only be taken so far when someone is going to pay over half a million for a residence.

Some of this conflict can probably be attributed to the fact that this building is part of a recent downtown revitalization, and issues like this were not anticipated by the developers trying to make a profit on their investments, nor by buyers looking to move into an exciting urban environment. Hopefully in the future, this can be avoided by learning from these mistakes. A true "urban center" does not appear overnight. Providence is well on the way, but it will take more time.

[brick]

i think the only precedent it sets is that condo associations can lie to the residents in order to score a big owner on the first floor, and that's pretty dangerous too. I don't hear anyone who lives above Lupo's complaining because they knew exactly what they were getting into.