Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,793 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
Quote:
Originally Posted by ormari
That is plainly wrong. I agree that there are over-the-top safety precautions which must be taken, but you don't have to tent the building, and you don't have to throw out the molding and doors and start over. There are other alternatives. And no, it is not cheaper to knock it down, unless you put crap up in its place, or don't put anything up in its place. You have to deal with the remediation of any present asbestos in any scenario, for instance…
You are misinformed about lead paint containment. That's now code nationally and is pretty much universally adopted because of the heath risk. If the exterior has lead paint and you are scraping, sanding, or sandblasting, you have to contain the lead paint dust.
If you have lead paint, it's now massively expensive to have anything done by a contractor. On the exterior, a neighbor can shut any painting project down on an older house. Brown University certainly knows this.
Oh really? I think my knowledge on the matter is current, but I would be glad if you provided some facts to back up your assertion.
Some contractors are taking advantage of the fear of lead to misrepresent what kind of work is required and to inflate prices. Maybe you were the victim of such a scheme. They set the bar for expectations when they tell you it is massively expensive. It need not be so, but they now have a convenient scapegoat in the regulations for the reason they quote so high.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the government body tasked with devising and promulgating regulations concerning renovations, repair, and painting where lead paint is involved. The most recent directives are from 2010, with minor amendments since then. In its pamphlet "Renovate Right", the US EPA outlines what procedures must be followed by licensed renovation contractors dealing with lead paint. Surely you are aware of it since you indicated that you recently had lead paint removal done and one of the requirements of any licensed contractor is that they disseminate this pamphlet to homeowners.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
So somebody removed all the lead paint from the interior? I've done that recently. It's enormously expensive. There is no way in the world I'd do it for rental stock. It would be awful ROI. You have to replace every interior door and every piece of trim. In a lot of cases, you have to gut the thing because there is lead paint on the walls and ceiling. And then there's asbestos. I've also paid to have that removed. In 2016, lead and asbestos are a hazmat suit with mask and hazardous waste disposal. On the exterior, you have to erect a tent over the building to contain the dust when you do the prep for painting. Unless the building has historical significance, it's cheaper to knock it down.
However, the US EPA, the rule maker, doesn't seem to agree with you regarding the need to tent a house. From the pamphlet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. EPA
1. Contain the work area. The area must be contained so that dust and debris do not escape from that area. Warning signs must be put up and plastic or other impermeable material and tape must be used as appropriate to:
• Cover the floors and any furniture that cannot be moved.
• Seal off doors and heating and cooling system vents. • For exterior renovations, cover the ground and, in some instances, erect vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area.
These work practices will help prevent dust or debris from getting outside the work area.
i.e., no tenting required. There are 1000s of exterior painting projects each year all over Rhode Island and Massachusetts, two leaders (by necessity) in dealing with lead paint. Standard practice is to tarp the ground from foundation outward. Occasionally where scaffolding is used, a screening material is used on the outside of the scaffolding. Work doesn't happen on a windy day. HEPA vacuums are hooked up to sanders. But nobody tents the house. I have never seen it, and I have seen countless renovations around Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the last six years. Surely somebody would have been caught by the Authority Having Jursidiction and made to tent the house were it necessary.
And nowhere in this document does it state that painted doors or moldings need to be replaced. I have never seen anything on the EPA website that states that. Show me.
And as far as I know, it is asinine to suggest that moldings and doors and other historic woodwork such s windows need to be removed/disposed of, if painted with lead paint. There are renovation projects going on all over Rhode Island and Massachusetts where the historic woodwork, painted or not, is restored. Your statement defies common sense and common practice.
Finally, your renovation can't be shut down for spurious reasons. A regulation has to be violated for that to occur. Contractors face huge fines, something like $10,000 per day if memory serves, for violations. Reputable contractors don't risk getting hit with big fines when they can pass the cost on to the property owner.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,793 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy
If your definition of integral includes "essential to completeness," then yes, I suppose by dint of owning half of CH and all of the beggars, grifters and ganifs in the elected state and local political establishment, then yes, Brown is integral. If integral's definition included "can't live without ya because we luv ya so much," no, there's no affinity between Brown and the neighborhood, that does not exist, not in my little world, not among the people and neighbors with whom I affiliate. I think your assessment of relations is not accurate.
The Columbia comparison is a valid contrast to Brown. When Columbia wishes to expand, OMG, the SWP (Straight, White, and Powerful) and the BLM (Bourgeois Lifestyles Matter) arrive on the scene and puts the university through cop hell. Decades, the neighborhood has stalled the university on multiple project for decades. Here in PVD? (Not even a whimper.) There is a valid tension between competing interests for that valuable land, so Columbia was wise to start actively engaging with the community. Owning the place and the pols, there is no incentive for Brown to engage locals because they do not have to. Point being, maybe Brown should revalidate its verdant vistas and Olmsean lawns and make better use of their existing 471 acres; perhaps they should stop buying up the hood.
I think you haven't presented a sufficient definition of my intended meaning of 'integral', but that's clearly by your rhetorical design; surely you know what I meant even if you refuse to admit it, probably since it does not serve your argument. When I lived on College Hill, the only complaints aired by my friends and neighbors vis-à-vis Brown were related to students in the neighborhood and parking issues. Most of my friends and neighbors appreciated the University and what it brings to the neighborhood. Your subset of the College Hill community is bound to be different than mine, of course, as we do not likely travel in the same social circles and as a result your experience may truly be different. Incidentally, Brown's proposed action with those seven properties addresses both the parking and the student resident complaints. It increases parking and it eliminates properties which historically have served as student slums.
As to Brown letting those structures decay in the few years they've owned them: that may be true, but to my knowledge they didn't get to the state they're in solely within their recent institutional ownership history. There's a good chance that one reason Brown bought them was specifically because they were trying to spruce up the neighborhood. One need not view Brown as the villain in this.
As I said, I think Brown ought to err on the side of preservation. But those particular houses probably aren't significant enough that they simply must remain in place. The Providence Preservation Society thinks they should not to be torn down if Brown doesn't put something better in their place; Brown ought to move them to someplace approriate nearby in the city, perhaps on an open lot in Mt. Hope. Still, those buildings aren't on any preservationist's top 10 must-save structures, even if the structures do contribute to the overall fabric of the neighborhood. The structures should be saved if possible; moving them keeps them from being torn down.
Concerning your flowery crticism of the use of the campus… I think you must mean Olmstedian, though the verdant vistas and lawns seem to be operating at reasonable efficiency already. I think Brown ought not to take a page from Columbia in this instance; there's no need or call for attempting to replicate that here. I think either New Haven or Princeton and their respective Ivies offer better comparisons to Providence than NYC. Cambridge too is more apt than NYC. Columbia v. Brown is a contrast alright, but perhaps best recognized as something of an exercise in mental masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Have at it if you must.
I'm not so sure. That's Warren Towers, BU's freshman dorm at 700 Commonweath Ave. If you think the way BU has taken over Boston neighborhoods is bad now, how much worse do you think it would be if those 1800 students and the 1800 students on West Campus were added to the brownstone housing in the area? There are a lot more complaints about the Allston student ghetto affecting local residents than Warren Towers, in a commercial zone. I'm sure Back Bay residents on Beacon and Marlborough are glad they're in that tower rather than next door to them. I can well imagine there are times PC and Brown area residents would love to see college students confined to dorm towers!
I think you haven't presented a sufficient definition of my intended meaning of 'integral', but that's clearly by your rhetorical design; surely you know what I meant even if you refuse to admit it, probably since it does not serve your argument.
No, words have meaning and I do try to be precise in understanding the meaning people assign to a word, especially if I believe that meaning is dodgy or inaccurate, or if another word seems more appropriate.
There are different shades and flavors of "integral." To me, a person not affiliated with or paid by or in any way economically or academically involved with the university, things like what's up at the List or what time the Hay library or Nelson Fitness Center are open are considerations; surface-level carpet-bombing of half a city block will also get my attention. I suspect that many of my non-affiliated neighbors have a similar low-level relationship with Brown; that relationship simply cannot be accurately defined as "integral." Now, were I employed or retained by Brown or were I a student, my relationship would be manifestly different -- certainly very integral. So, in summary, integral is where you stand and where you sit.
Quote:
When I lived on College Hill, the only complaints aired by my friends and neighbors vis-à-vis Brown were related to students in the neighborhood and parking issues.
“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” The issues you raise are small-bore to me -- if someone parks in my off-street parking space (which, obviously, I only need on occasion for visitors), I call the towing company; Problem Solved. Student behavior has never been an issue for me. Doing an urban renewal slash-and-burn? That's an issue.
Quote:
...
As to Brown letting those structures decay in the few years they've owned them: that may be true, but to my knowledge they didn't get to the state they're in solely within their recent institutional ownership history. There's a good chance that one reason Brown bought them was specifically because they were trying to spruce up the neighborhood. One need not view Brown as the villain in this.
Oh yes yes yes, a surface parking lot! That'll REALLY spruce up the neighborhood, huh?
Quote:
As I said, I think Brown ought to err on the side of preservation. But those particular houses probably aren't significant enough that they simply must remain in place. The Providence Preservation Society thinks they should not to be torn down if Brown doesn't put something better in their place; Brown ought to move them to someplace approriate nearby in the city, perhaps on an open lot in Mt. Hope. Still, those buildings aren't on any preservationist's top 10 must-save structures, even if the structures do contribute to the overall fabric of the neighborhood. The structures should be saved if possible; moving them keeps them from being torn down.
I must not be expressing myself clearly. Let me try again, and I apologize if I have been scattered: "Should the buildings be demolished?" I don't know, perhaps yes but likely no. My beef is that Brown doesn't engage the residents when they make these changes to their master plan, and that's wrong. They do not own every parcel here, and people who live here or own investment property here should have a say. That's the concern.
Quote:
Concerning your flowery crticism of the use of the campus… I think you must mean Olmstedian, though the verdant vistas and lawns seem to be operating at reasonable efficiency already. I think Brown ought not to take a page from Columbia in this instance; there's no need or call for attempting to replicate that here. I think either New Haven or Princeton and their respective Ivies offer better comparisons to Providence than NYC. Cambridge too is more apt than NYC. Columbia v. Brown is a contrast alright, but perhaps best recognized as something of an exercise in mental masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Have at it if you must.
Always room for increased efficiencies, always a better way to use existing space. What you leave out of is that Columbia is a model for a university in interacting with their non-affiliated partners, the nearby residents. They HAVE to engage, it is not an option and when they tried to circumvent the neighborhood, they got their breasts caught in a wringer that took nearly 25 years to extricate. Brown has never had a near-death experience in dealing with a brass-knuckled citizens organization or an empowered city and state, as Columbia did. Noooo, Brown sits around, eating bon bons all day, practicing their already keen ability to ignore those they adversely impact on their home turf. (I have always found it is easier to communicate than to not; Brown hasn't reached adulthood yet, I guess, because they certainly don't act very, you know, adult?)
So, how to do it? Do it. Here's some links that serve almost as "Exhibit A" for how a major academic institution can relate and effectively communicate:
Got a problem with Columbia? Call them.
Want to know how Columbia is engaged in community service in Morningside Heights? Ask them.
Want updates on community relations" Read it.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,793 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy
Quote:
When I lived on College Hill, the only complaints aired by my friends and neighbors vis-à-vis Brown were related to students in the neighborhood and parking issues.
“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” The issues you raise are small-bore to me -- if someone parks in my off-street parking space (which, obviously, I only need on occasion for visitors), I call the towing company; Problem Solved. Student behavior has never been an issue for me. Doing an urban renewal slash-and-burn? That's an issue.
Oh, I agree; I was simply offering you a different perspective, as you so invited when you noted the people and neighbors (not people?) of your little world:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieBoy
If integral's definition included "can't live without ya because we luv ya so much," no, there's no affinity between Brown and the neighborhood, that does not exist, not in my little world, not among the people and neighbors with whom I affiliate. I think your assessment of relations is not accurate.
Quote:
Oh yes yes yes, a surface parking lot! That'll REALLY spruce up the neighborhood, huh?
Those houses have been in disrepair for quite a while, longer than Brown's owned them, perhaps longer than you've been in Rhode Island, and may yet still be standing by the time you inevitably leave. And, I did put in a plug for a good brutalist parking garage instead of a lot… With any luck, they're listening.
Oh, I agree; I was simply offering you a different perspective, as you so invited when you noted the people and neighbors (not people?) of your little world:
Oh puleeze!
Quote:
Those houses have been in disrepair for quite a while, longer than Brown's owned them, perhaps longer than you've been in Rhode Island, and may yet still be standing by the time you inevitably leave.
Yes, still on sked for BCN in 2023. That is, unless I'm drafted for Mayuh of this fair city.
Quote:
And, I did put in a plug for a good brutalist parking garage instead of a lot… With any luck, they're listening.
That hurt. That really hurt. Two items for you:
1. Just about every elevated parking lot s Brutalist, though the recently reconfigured Biltmore garage has shops on the street level and looks better than before.
2. In a quirk of reality, I've spent some amount of time shooting parking garages in PVD that are not Brutalist and indeed have interesting lines:
Yes, I'm moving up the creative ladder -- two months ago I was shooting parking cones on Weybosset, last month trash dumpsters off Mathewson, and now, now I'm in the rarefied artistic world of shooting... parking garages. Only in Providence could a guy like me so rapidly advance in the social strata.
BTW, exciting news! Christo was seen downtown recently eying City Hall. Word is he's going to wrap it, much as he did the Reichstag. I hope he uses super glue. More details as they become available...
While work is being performed, Lead-Safe Remodeler/Renovators and their workers must:
Contain the work area to prevent dust and debris from escaping.
Refrain from using work methods that generate large amounts of lead-contaminated dust. Dry sweeping, using heat guns at temperatures above 1100°F, open flame burning, and using flammable or methylene chloride paint strippers are prohibited.
When work is complete, Lead-Safe Remodeler/Renovators and their workers must:
Clean dust and debris using a HEPA vacuum and wet mops.
Have a Certified Environmental Lead Inspector or Technician conduct a clearance inspection.
Remove containment barriers upon notification that the dust wipes passed clearance.
This is a requirement pretty much anywhere in the country these days.
Demolition is subject to the same regulations as renovation.
Now isn't that interesting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
