Jump to content

DEAD: Belmonte Castello (Knight Street)

Cotuit

By Cotuit
in Providence Projects and Construction

Recommended Posts

Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

Very interesting. It's starting to be apparent that costs of construction, more than any apparently slowing of our market, seems to be the biggest ongoing drag to projects right now.

I know we've been through this before, but is the 30% increase in one year due mostly to:

- Post Southern hurricanes (Katrina, Florida's storms) increased costs of materials

- Increased competition for construction workers, driving up prices

Can anyone in the building industry comment on this? This has to hit the Northeast worse than anywhere else, given our distance from the South (competing for workers), already high cost of land, and the costly approval processes here.

- Garris

PS: Oh, yeah, where does the Castle of Belmonte go from here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think steel prices are also quite high due to building booms in Dubai and China.

PS: Oh, yeah, where does the Castle of Belmonte go from here?

I wouldn't shed too many tears if it was scrapped in favor of a set of nice 4 story rowhouses on the corner. There's not really a pressing need for the groundfloor retail this project is supposed to bring, it'd be nice to see some stoops on Atwells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't shed too many tears if it was scrapped in favor of a set of nice 4 story rowhouses on the corner. There's not really a pressing need for the groundfloor retail this project is supposed to bring, it'd be nice to see some stoops on Atwells.

Great idea. I don't know what Providence has against rowhouses. Other cities (Philly, Boston, NYC, Minneapolis, etc) can't build/sell them fast enough.

How expensive could that land have been for them to need over 45 million dollars of sales to recoup building costs and investment?

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

How expensive could that land have been for them to need over 45 million dollars of sales to recoup building costs and investment?

As I understand it, the parking requirements have been a big economic issue. They decided they wanted to build x number of units and they needed x number of parking spaces for those units. The cost of the parking exceeded what they could get for the units so they increased both until the equation allowed them to turn a profit. Now construction costs are rising, ruining that unit-to-parking equation and they are trying to squeeze in more, smaller units.

This of course all highlights the need for overnight parking, and a parking structure on the Hill that residents can rent spaces in.

Great idea. I don't know what Providence has against rowhouses.

I think current zoning all but prohibits them. Of course current zoning also prohibits a 100+foot building on Atwells Avenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JJK5 Hamlet

JJK5

Posted
Posted

I think steel prices are also quite high due to building booms in Dubai and China.

China's also affecting the cost of concrete, which I believe has risen 600% or so in cost the past few years, simply because China is buying as much as they can get. Goods are going to China, and labor is heading south where you can overcharge and underdeliver to the people in need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

China's also affecting the cost of concrete, which I believe has risen 600% or so in cost the past few years, simply because China is buying as much as they can get.

Yeah, I think the Three Gorges Dam need just a pinch of concrete didn't it? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
jencoleslaw Town

jencoleslaw

Posted
Posted

Wow, nice way to make the board like you and look favourably on your proposal. :rolleyes: How could someone go from getting what is arguably a sweetheart deal as far as bypassing zoning regulations to being back to square one? Greed?

they aren't back at square one, they are back to their first set of record number of variances. They didn't get the second set of variances which would have doubled the density. However, i am hearing thru the grapevine (not at all verified) that the financing is slipping away. not sure of that though. that project appeared to have some deeeeeep pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerry2 Hamlet

Jerry2

Posted
Posted

they aren't back at square one, they are back to their first set of record number of variances. They didn't get the second set of variances which would have doubled the density. However, i am hearing thru the grapevine (not at all verified) that the financing is slipping away. not sure of that though. that project appeared to have some deeeeeep pockets.

I envisioned this being a parking lot a long time ago. Let's hope that this doesn't happen. Also, what's up with those houses they tore down on Acorn? that Cotuit posted not too long ago. Any updates? Please tell me it's not parking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jencoleslaw Town

jencoleslaw

Posted
Posted

I envisioned this being a parking lot a long time ago. Let's hope that this doesn't happen. Also, what's up with those houses they tore down on Acorn? that Cotuit posted not too long ago. Any updates? Please tell me it's not parking.

still haven't found out anything about that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Also, what's up with those houses they tore down on Acorn? that Cotuit posted not too long ago. Any updates? Please tell me it's not parking.

I've asked people who should know what's up there, and they don't. It's not clear if they actually had a demo permit or not. I'll let people know if I hear anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan Hamlet

Dan

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I think the Three Gorges Dam need just a pinch of concrete didn't it? :lol:

I saw a documentary on that on Discovery a few days ago. It was truly awesome!

Entire villages were intentionally submerged and their residents forced to relocate to cinderblock housing projects built 1,000 yards up the hill. These were salt-of-the-earth people whose village existed solely because of the river, and the government came in and wiped the place right off the map.

I have to say - I felt their pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
quente Whistle-Stop

quente

Posted
Posted

This project, listed as 434 Atwells Ave, was in yesterdays New England Construction News as going out for bid. It calls for 10 stories, 64 units and underground parking. Costs range from 5 - 15 million dollars.

Perhaps I missed something when I read back through several pages of posts but how did they end up getting permission for 64 units?

The June 9th article in ProJo said that the developer was appealing the ZBR decision that denied their request for a variance to increase the density from 43 to 64 units - so did the developer win on appeal? (If so, that appeal went through the system in record time.) And did the Journal forget to report it?

What gives?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveRPI Whistle-Stop

DaveRPI

Posted
Posted

good

federal hill is one of the densest areas of the whole state

it should stay that way

1. b/c its an extension of downtown

2. b/c of its history as a dense area

3. b/c it keeps up with the urban progress of the city

4. adds more higher-value-units to the area bringing up the median and adding appreciation to home owners so that they made use equity to improve their homes and add more equity to it [and federal hill] or to sell and have money to start small businesses with or send kids to college, everybody wins

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jencoleslaw Town

jencoleslaw

Posted
Posted

Perhaps I missed something when I read back through several pages of posts but how did they end up getting permission for 64 units?

The June 9th article in ProJo said that the developer was appealing the ZBR decision that denied their request for a variance to increase the density from 43 to 64 units - so did the developer win on appeal? (If so, that appeal went through the system in record time.) And did the Journal forget to report it?

What gives?!?

maybe they are still hoping to get it, but my understanding is that they didn't get the variance. I'll ask around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
oak Unincorporated Area

oak

Posted
Posted
now i just grabbed this from the PDF and i have no idea, now, if this meeting is Monday the 9th or Tuesday the 23rd. Those pdfs on the secretary of state's website suck. it is possible that the 23rd is for the next batch of applicants but there's no break in the text so who the hell knows.

anyway it appears that his monstrosity is, in fact, back on the docket asking AGAIN for a major variance on a variance.

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.