Providence Projects v2.0

[Cotuit]

Never underestimate the power of condo restrictions.  Those suckers are backed up by law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the Capital Centre Commission doesn't need to be worrying their pretty little heads over this. The Condo Board will have stricter rules than the Capital Centre Commission could ever imagine. They aren't going to let unsightly balconies mar the value of their building and condo units.

Jus tell them to go ahead and start digging already!

[pdxstreetcar]

Never underestimate the power of condo restrictions. Those suckers are backed up by law. The NYT did a great article series several years ago about the ultra restrictive condo and residential development rules out in some Western and Southwestern states (where as much as 70-80% of new housing is built carrying such condo association restrictions!!). People can, and have, been evicted from their homes for refusing to do things as simple as hide their garbage cans correctly. Amazing stuff.

Some of it is a power trip among assocation presidents, but often, this rules serve useful purposes that do increase the value of property. Left to their own devices, people do some pretty funky stuff to their houses!

Slightly going off-topic, I find this very interesting because usually very conservative people live in gated communities and suburban areas with covenants/codes . Yet the strict codes in these communities seem to conflict with their strong "property rights" beliefs. I dont get it.

[Garris]

Slightly going off-topic, I find this very interesting because usually very conservative people live in gated communities and suburban areas with covenants/codes . Yet the strict codes in these communities seem to conflict with their strong "property rights" beliefs. I dont get it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, as with all things, it comes down to money. Municipalities in these fast growing states are far more likely to approve projects that have strong associations (and legally give them a lot of power) because these associations assume costly services that save the municipality money. The associations usually do their own garbage collection, street paving, sidewalk repair, plowing, tree work, leaf clearance, etc. In exchange for taking these costly burdens off the government, the municipalities give them increased power of domain legally over everything from noise to lawn appearance. Removing the burden of the costs off the local government lets them keep taxes low, which promotes more building, which allows for more growth, which allows the government to not need to raise taxes, which makes all the political backers wealthier, etc, etc, repeat cycle...

But one of the article's points was that buyers in these states (Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc) tend to be more conservative and more "individual rights" and find the association rules rankle their sensibilities. However, with over 3/4 of new building having these, it's almost impossible to find an affordable home without such an arrangement.

This would probably never happen here because builders and government aren't nearly as co-dependent. The only thing going for these Western communities is low cost growth. Take that away, and most of these places would crash hard. They have nothing else economically to stand upon. The Eastern states communities are more economically mature and have higher taxes to support their activities.

- Garris

[Cotuit]

"individual rights"

Right, until someone tries to have sex with the lights on!

[Cotuit]

There is quite a bit going on, although, looking at the 1.0 version, not that much is really new.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just going through some of this to prepare an update. I thought this remark by Garris was quite funny in retrospect. If only we all knew then what we know now.

[ArtInRuins]

David Brussat: Up the balconies! Irk the modernists!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just to chime in... DB perpetually has blinders on. A city of nothing but ornamented greek revival structures would be BORING! Give me brick, glass, marble, steel AND cement. Give me post modern, classic, revival, and pseudo revival all at once. No more bland cityscapes!

[provid]

From what i hear the Westin tower is going to be cement other than the outter brink.

[Frankie811]

Speaking of which, did anyone see the channel 12 late news last night, and the story about the run-down house full of wild cats, that neighbors were complaining about. The "area man" interviewed for the story was me      The part they didn't mention in the story is that the house has been like that for over 10 years now!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Jenkins, you live near a cat house

[glassandsteel]

From what i hear the Westin  tower is going to be cement other than the outter brink.

So, what is this that you say about the Westin being cement? What exactly did you hear and from where?

[provid]

It wont use structural steel

[glassandsteel]

Oh. Okay.

[kurtosis]

Just to chime in... DB perpetually has blinders on. A city of nothing but ornamented greek revival structures would be BORING! Give me brick, glass, marble, steel AND cement. Give me post modern, classic, revival, and pseudo revival all at once. No more bland cityscapes!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brussat's attitude can be off-putting at times but I've come to agree with a lot of what he says. A lot of modernist architecture is ugly and unwelcoming. since it is hard to defend it on aesthetic grounds pro-modernists usually argue that buildings should be new and innovative, or add variety. but every style is new and innovative at the start and in say 50-100 years this wears off. likewise variety is not so great if that means a certain fraction of the buildings are plain ugly. some of the most beautiful cities (paris, barcelona) were largely built-up during a certain period in a consistent style and it's to their benefit.

[gregw]

I personally think Brussat writes the same column over and over again.

Traditional architecture is good and modernism is bad. (Yawn.)

Can traditional ever fail and can modernism ever succeed?

Even when he discusses an older building he often just enumerates what's "traditional" (i.e. it has enough ornament even though it's a piece of faux classical B.S. done up in Dryvit) to show that it's "good."

I don't think any building created in the past 100 years that doesn't try to look old could be considered good in his book.

He seems also to be tone deaf to the qualities of Providence's many excellent industrial buildings because, I assume, they lack the requisite amount of ornamentation.

Why doesn't Brussat discuss individual buildings and how they address the urban environment instead of just using a litmus test whether or not they conform to his preexisting standard of quality?

My 2 cents...

[kurtosis]

I personally think Brussat writes the same column over and over again.

Traditional architecture is good and modernism is bad. (Yawn.)

Can traditional ever fail and can modernism ever succeed?

Even when he discusses an older building he often just enumerates what's "traditional" (i.e. it has enough ornament even though it's a piece of faux classical B.S. done up in Dryvit) to show that it's "good."

I don't think any building created in the past 100 years that doesn't try to look old could be considered good in his book.

He seems also to be tone deaf to the qualities of Providence's many excellent industrial buildings because, I assume, they lack the requisite amount of ornamentation.

Why doesn't Brussat discuss individual buildings and how they address the urban environment instead of just using a litmus test whether or not they conform to his preexisting standard of quality?

My 2 cents...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, Brussat is repetetive and formulaic, and his arguments aren't all that developed. At the same time.... I actually agree with him that a lot of modern architecture is unsightly. I wouldn't dismiss it categorically but to some extent it's good to have someone presenting the traditionalist perspective consistently. A lot of arguments for "bold" and "innovative" new architecture equally b.s. so at least he makes for an argument.

[gregw]

I agree with you 100%. I think Brussat would be a more effective critic of modern architecture if he weren't so categorical in his dislike for it. If he could bring himself to admire some of it, then his denunciations of most of it wouldn't seem so doctrinaire.

[Cotuit]

From ProJo

[Garris]

Great map... Two questions though:

1) What is the difference between proposed and planned?

2) Is Jefferson on the wrong side of the river on the map?

- Garris

[Cotuit]

1) What is the difference between proposed and planned?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dunno.

2) Is Jefferson on the wrong side of the river on the map?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope.

[kinematix]

Looks like Jefferson is in the correct place to me...

[Recchia]

Anybody know whats going on with that building across from Jefferson, the delapitated eyesore one between Jefferson and Route 10? Are they gonna knock it down or anything?

[Cotuit]

Anybody know whats going on with that building across from Jefferson, the delapitated eyesore one between Jefferson and Route 10? Are they gonna knock it down or anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no concrete proposal, but the state has sold the property to a developer. There's a thread about it here.

[provid]

The park on the other side of the river in front of the court house has a new sign reading

[Cotuit]

WWIII ( ? )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is Memorial Park, so that's what it's there for. We'll be gaining greenspace across the river soon as part of the 195 project.

[provid]

I find it a little starge they are ready to fire up a new project when the WW one has been cranking away at the speed of a snail.

[Cotuit]

They aren't city projects. It's two seperate private memorial committees designing and funding each memorial. The city donates the public land, and they probably provided some sort of grant as part of the funding, but they aren't public works projects.