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.
I also don't understand what views are being blocked here. What, those poor College Hill residents won't have that distant panorama of RI Hospital anymore?
Where did I ever write that the building should be stopped solely for that reason?
You didn't. It was one of several reasons some of us disagree with .
Quote:
I said it shouldn't exceed already established height limits. We do have height limits you know.
We also have a Special Permit process to waive those height limits in individual cases.
Quote:
Most of the posters here- with the exception of shiver916 who makes some very points I think- seem to be in favor of the idea that huge (especially in the form of generic skyscrapers) is always better. I don't think huge is always better.
I don't either, but I do believe there are right and wrong ways and places to go huge. P42 is a great place to go huge, as long as it's done with the right aesthetics, mix of uses within and around, access to public transportation, and public spaces.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with its revitalized waterfront.
No, but it goes to show what a failed city it is. In a broad sense, how has it helped? Step away from the Inner Harbor and you are literally gambling with your life. Tourists are told to lock their doors and make a beeline for I95 when finishing their evening. Maybe had they focused on other things instead?
Also, Providence doesn't have a large harbor like that, right in the middle of the city.
Yeah, Chicago's waterfront is lined with residential highrises in the most desirable locations. Boston's building them along the seaport and on the East Boston waterfront at a staggering rate. Halifax Nova Scotia is comparably sized to Providence (a little smaller actually) and has a gorgeous waterfront with high rises. The key in all cases is doing them right. They shouldn't restrict all people from being able to access the waterfront (in the examples above, they don't - they actually improve access by improving access points and maintaining walkways). The Fain proposal is a small footprint adjacent to a five acre park. It doesn't restrict or hamper access in any way. It MAY show up (but not block) a few views from some places, but as you said, stopping it for that reason is absolutely catering to the privileged (and unfairly entitled) few.
Fane's proposal, if built as proposed, will set a precedent for the area. Small footprint maybe but the ridiculous height would only encourage more of the same. Look at the Portsmouth Carnegie Abbey building at 22 stories and then picture 46 stories. Now picture multiple 46 story buildings. Of course, I'm well aware that developers ask for the moon so they can settle for less.
I'm glad to hear that at least, there is supposed to be a 5 acre waterfront access park. However, I would still like us to adhere to the rules!
Boston and Chicago should not mentioned in the same breath as Providence assuming we want to keep it a manageable city.
Some of us actually moved here because it was a historical and smallish town and didn't ever want to live in Chicago, Boston, or NYC for that matter. Some of us would like Providence to stay somewhat unique. Does Mr Fane give a fig about any of this- I sincerely doubt it. And those who post comments here who don't live here- they're entitled to an opinion but they don't have a dog in the fight.
Fane's proposal, if built as proposed, will set a precedent for the area. Small footprint maybe but the ridiculous height would only encourage more of the same. Look at the Portsmouth Carnegie Abbey building at 22 stories and then picture 46 stories. Now picture multiple 46 story buildings. Of course, I'm well aware that developers ask for the moon so they can settle for less.
I'm glad to hear that at least, there is supposed to be a 5 acre waterfront access park. However, I would still like us to adhere to the rules!
Boston and Chicago should not mentioned in the same breath as Providence assuming we want to keep it a manageable city.
Some of us actually moved here because it was a historical and smallish town and didn't ever want to live in Chicago, Boston, or NYC for that matter. Some of us would like Providence to stay somewhat unique. Does Mr Fane give a fig about any of this- I sincerely doubt it. And those who post comments here who don't live here- they're entitled to an opinion but they don't have a dog in the fight.
As a Rhode Islander with a dog in the fight, I'd say one of the very, very least of Providence's problems is the chance it will become another Chicago, Boston or NYC. Absolutely 0%. Agree, PVD's considerable historic architectural assets should be protected to preserve its considerable character. A tall, architecturally iconic, signature tower built in the early 21st century takes nothing away from this. And, if done right can only enhance the city as a unique place.
Fane's proposal, if built as proposed, will set a precedent for the area. Small footprint maybe but the ridiculous height would only encourage more of the same. Look at the Portsmouth Carnegie Abbey building at 22 stories and then picture 46 stories. Now picture multiple 46 story buildings. Of course, I'm well aware that developers ask for the moon so they can settle for less.
The "precedent" for that area was set when the Superman Building topped out at 428 feet in 1927. I get that the 195 land is newly vacant, but the site of Fain's tower is less than 1/4 mile (or a 6 minute walk) from the that building. 46 residential floors are going to be VERY close in height to the height of the Superman Building (even if the latter is only 30 stories - office floors are higher).
There is no use in referencing Carnegie Abbey Tower as it's a different animal entirely. It's not similar in any aspect other than the fact that it happens to be a high rise building. It's in a private development in a secluded section of a quiet, low density residential community on an island. The Fain proposal is an urban development in the urban core of a metropolitan area of 1.6 million people. The two are VERY different and target very different residents.
Finally, there's no need to imagine multiple 46 story buildings since only one is proposed. Just because a city builds a tower doesn't mean that it evolves into Midtown Manhattan overnight. If that were the case, Downcity would have been full of 428 foot towers after the Superman building was completed in 1927. Highrises aren't herpes, they don't just spread. Furthermore, a variance for a single tower doesn't necessarily mean that all buildings in the area will get variances. It doesn't work that way and they're viewed on a case by case basis. If this building triggers 9 new 46 story tower proposals (it won't), the city can enforce the rules and force the developers to comply with the cap. However this is the first proposal of its kind and it's hard to argue that private development is good and hundreds of new residents downtown is also great for the city.
Quote:
Boston and Chicago should not mentioned in the same breath as Providence assuming we want to keep it a manageable city. Some of us actually moved here because it was a historical and smallish town and didn't ever want to live in Chicago, Boston, or NYC for that matter. Some of us would like Providence to stay somewhat unique. Does Mr Fane give a fig about any of this- I sincerely doubt it. And those who post comments here who don't live here- they're entitled to an opinion but they don't have a dog in the fight.
That's fair, they're not comparable. Halifax is a good example though (really worth a visit if you haven't been), and I'm still not sure how this makes Providence any historical or unique? It takes a chunk of a vacant lot and converts it into housing in the city center which adds foot traffic for local businesses and can help stimulate the development of other vacant lots.
I have no idea what Fain cares about, nor would I try to guess. In the same way it makes no sense to imagine multiple 46 story buildings when there is only 1 proposed, it doesn't make sense to try to guess how much the developer cares about the city. All you can do is look at what's there - a private proposal aimed at converting a vacant lot in a relatively stagnant area to new residences. That's a net positive.
I understand the nostalgic attachment. It's your capitol city, it's all you have. But take off your blinders folks. Providence is fighting for it's very life. There's a far greater chance of bankruptcy than ever bearing the slightest resemblance to Boston. Or any other thriving city. Please don't mistake stagnant and crumbling for charming and quaint. Providence is a poor city in a poor state. Anybody thinking that the status quo is something to be maintained, simply hasn't been paying attention. Insularity and parochialism won't save Providence. Fresh thinking, fresh ideas and outside investment just might. Why not let Mr. Fane know that he's come to the right place.
Where did I ever write that the building should be stopped solely for that reason? I said it shouldn't exceed already established height limits. We do have height limits you know.
Most of the posters here- with the exception of shiver916 who makes some very points I think- seem to be in favor of the idea that huge (especially in the form of generic skyscrapers) is always better. I don't think huge is always better.
Bottom line is: If Fane's building is built as proposed and our development council caves- we'll ultimately see how successful it is.
Want to place some early bets now????? You may be able to get in early on an extremely expensive bird's eye view condo featuring the iron scrap heap on the working waterfront side.....
For the record, so that people don't keep putting words in my mouth: I'm in favor of smart growth that doesn't bankrupt the taxpayer by subsidizing dumb ideas. And, there's lot of growth and new building going on in downtown Providence already. You will soon be able to get a place right over the train tracks- woo woo.
Nobody's putting words in your mouth except you. You posited clearly and unequivocally that high-rises on the waterfront ruin cities, citing Fall River and Hartford as examples. You offered no empirical data, no facts or extrapolations of fact to substantiate such a preposterous claim. You were called out on it, and rightfully so. Rather than lash out in defensiveness, why not just put the shovel down. You've already dug your hole more than deep enough.
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.
.
