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.
Tucked in between the dozens and dozens of Brown University academic and student residential buildings is a neighborhood. The neighborhood existed well before the slave-trading Brown family decided to build a college, and was known as Prospect Hill. Through the recent decades, the Brown Bear has steamrolled the neighborhood with the maw of a voracious animal. Expansion is to be expected, but Brown has been particularly indifferent to the people who live here and to the historic essence of this area. Let us not forget that Brown and RISD got a woodie at the notion of demolishing much of Benefit Street. Fortunately, the PPS rose up and saved the distinctive quality of our architecture and heritage. But it seems like a losing battle. Brown is in the process of demolishing seven multi-family houses to build... a parking lot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProJo Jan 14 2016
Brown University intends to flatten half of a city block near Thayer Street in the College Hill neighborhood to create a commercial parking lot.
In an amendment to the school’s master plan filed with the Providence Planning Department, Brown officials wrote they want to raze seven multifamily houses that the school owns between Cushing Street, Meeting Street and Brook Street. The amendment document calls the two-unit buildings “unsightly.”
Really?
Were Brown truly interested in removing "unsightly structures" they really ought start by bulldozing half of their damned modern campus buildings! SciLi, a Brutalist monster; The List Art building, designed (of course of course) by that bug-eyed creature who sympathized with and supported the rise of anti-Semitism and Nazism, Philip Johnson. Grad Centers A, B, C and D? They look like public housing found in the Bronx! Meehan Auditorium, the water tower on Hope St. I could go on...
So Brown will get its way -- it owns the city, though it certainly doesn't pay for that ownership in any substantial way. And soon we will be treated to a parking lot. My my my. But, not to worry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golocalprov
....
The proposed parking lot will be well-lit and its edges will be carefully landscaped to screen the vehicles from the street. It will be managed by a third-party as a commercial lot, not as a permit parking lot for Brown faculty, staff or students.
Yeah. Sure, they "say" they'll cleverly camouflage the parking lot, but what of the noise, traffic, air pollution and increased congestion? How will they "landscape" that?
There are of course benefits and drawbacks to living essentially on the campus of Brown. The Nelson Fitness Center is spectacular and I use it nearly daily... for a stout fee, but it;s nice that residents have access to it, and access to many lectures and art exhibits. But hang around CH for a while and experience the indifference of Brown to its neighbors.
It's a done deal, so life goes on, but what prompted me to post this probably annoying thread is this: Brown has let the these properties decay for years, and it was only this past winter that a fence was constructed. Here's the fence as it has existed since January 16:
Surely no expense was spared for such a fine "screen." And here is why I am so furious: on Tuesday, as the university ramped for commencement, a better, gentler, less junkyard-like fabric was added to obscure the scene of the crime:
Could Christo have done a more proper job? And to think -- they did this for those of us who live here (students included), huh? Uh, no. The fabric, which would have been appropriate a year ago, was installed so the gentle sensitivities of Brown's "Young Alumni" (to say nothing of their view) can party directly -- absolutely directly -- across the street in a series of tents:
I'm sorry, but it reeks of 1%'er White privilege. And the lineage of this "White privilege" at Brown isn't new -- they were that way when they sold or traded human beings in the slave trade, amassing a fortune built on the suffering of others.
I think it goes without saying, what with me being in a highly but temporary agitated state, that my stout doggie is NOT wearing her traditional commencement brown bandana, nor will she for the foreseeable future. That was her decision and I support it.,
(Damned, I feel SO MUCH BETTER for getting this out of my system...)
Slave trade business is mostly irrelevant. Brown was relatively minuscule in terms of that. Their part was magnified under the direct orders of Ruth Simmons- you'll have to trust me on this. The DeWolfs of Bristol had the slave trade cornered in Ri.
However, Brown has long been known as an entity that doesn't care much about that neighborhood they're in and the historic significance of it. It's been a multi-decade battle that Providence has been losing. A while ago they said they would mostly expand in the jewelry district- what happened to that little promise?
Without Brown and RISD, Providence would be a decaying hell hole. I don't see that 7 lead paint-encrusted unoccupied working class houses are in any way "historic architecture". It's a city. Old structures get knocked down and replaced in all cities. With the near-infinite resources of Brown, they should have demolished those buildings the minute they acquired them. You can debate the "temporary" parking lot that will likely eventually be either student housing or an academic building. They can't just bring in topsoil and plant grass because the city would then call it greenspace and refuse to allow Brown to build on it so they really have no choice but to pave it.
Every urban college has this exact same set of issues. You can't stop it. The best you can hope for is rational planning in how the expansion interacts with the rest of the city.
Without Brown and RISD, Providence would be a decaying hell hole. I don't see that 7 lead paint-encrusted unoccupied working class houses are in any way "historic architecture". It's a city. Old structures get knocked down and replaced in all cities. With the near-infinite resources of Brown, they should have demolished those buildings the minute they acquired them. You can debate the "temporary" parking lot that will likely eventually be either student housing or an academic building. They can't just bring in topsoil and plant grass because the city would then call it greenspace and refuse to allow Brown to build on it so they really have no choice but to pave it.
Every urban college has this exact same set of issues. You can't stop it. The best you can hope for is rational planning in how the expansion interacts with the rest of the city.
Without Brown and RISD, Providence would be a decaying hell hole. I don't see that 7 lead paint-encrusted unoccupied working class houses are in any way "historic architecture". It's a city. Old structures get knocked down and replaced in all cities. With the near-infinite resources of Brown, they should have demolished those buildings the minute they acquired them. You can debate the "temporary" parking lot that will likely eventually be either student housing or an academic building. They can't just bring in topsoil and plant grass because the city would then call it greenspace and refuse to allow Brown to build on it so they really have no choice but to pave it.
Every urban college has this exact same set of issues. You can't stop it. The best you can hope for is rational planning in how the expansion interacts with the rest of the city.
Without Brown and RISD, Providence would be a decaying hell hole. I don't see that 7 lead paint-encrusted unoccupied working class houses are in any way "historic architecture". It's a city. Old structures get knocked down and replaced in all cities.[/quote]
I never asserted they were plaque buildings, I simply reported what was in the local media: that Brown had originally acquired the properties for a lab building, then they could find the shekels so they decided to demolish half a city block in the tightly woven College Hill district to construct a for-profit parking lot in the middle of a largely residential street. Oh, and that they did so without consulting the neighbors.
Quote:
With the near-infinite resources of Brown, they should have demolished those buildings the minute they acquired them. You can debate the "temporary" parking lot that will likely eventually be either student housing or an academic building. They can't just bring in topsoil and plant grass because the city would then call it greenspace and refuse to allow Brown to build on it so they really have no choice but to pave it.
I think Pembroke Field also is "on the shelf," should that land prove helpful to Brown.
It's not entirely about whether Brown fixed them or tore them down, it's that they did not reach out to the people who live a house or two away, or the greater area, and whose house value just took a bullet right in the kisser, right in the face because their house's value will fall: it no long adjoins other buildings, it borders a commercial, by-the-hour parking lot that will also affect quality of life for residents. A reserved lot is one thing, there's no outsiders coming and going, with a reserved lot as it's long-termers. Bars close at 2am on weekends and Thayer Street is one block from the pending lot on Brook Street. Should be fun for people who invested in their properties and improved them have no say in their neighborhood. Maybe Brown's right and the best possible use, bar none, is a commercial parking lit. selfish interests aking a parking lot is a swell, idea, but I don't know, and no one asked, and we should have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
Every urban college has this exact same set of issues. You can't stop it. The best you can hope for is rational planning in how the expansion interacts with the rest of the city.
And I posted "Expansion is to be expected, but Brown has been particularly indifferent to the people who live here," and that's the core of my beef. I absolutely agree -- it's about planning, but it's also about setting expectations with Brown, and soon. Yes, it's true, they are tax freeloaders, their total PILOT payment is less than the university's expense of paying the Brown faculty's annual Communist Party membership dues.
This isn't a "temporary parking lot"; it's a public off-street lot to help local businesses who are allegedly struggling because of a lack of parking. Meanwhile, Brown already has its own 49-space lot one block to the north that I've never seen anywhere near fully occupied (on one recent weekday afternoon in February, on a typical school day, I counted eight cars).
The truth is, there is no lack of parking - there are always spaces available further north on Thayer, or on Brown Street, or on Waterman. There is a lack of spaces *at the door* of each business, which this parking lot won't solve, and it won't cause anyone who is avoiding Thayer because "there's no parking" to come to Thayer. What's more, the new $1.25-an-hour meters are supposedly killing business. Are these same people going to pay market rate for off-street parking?
The buildings in question all look like they have been repainted since 1979, so I wouldn't worry about "lead-encrusted." They may not be individually great structures, but they contribute to the context of the neighborhood. If they were being replaced with something of the proper scale and context, I don't think anyone would be too upset. A parking lot is as attractive to a neighborhood as missing teeth is to a face.
This isn't a "temporary parking lot"; it's a public off-street lot to help local businesses who are allegedly struggling because of a lack of parking.
Nonsense. Why would Brown spend all that money on a public parking lot? They have a building penciled in to go on that site eventually. In the mean time, they need to do something with the land. They can't let it sit vacant growing weeds or it would **** everybody off. They can't plant nice grass and turn it into greenspace because then the city would insist that it remain greenspace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp775
The buildings in question all look like they have been repainted since 1979, so I wouldn't worry about "lead-encrusted."
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.
The issue is not just this last incident and anyone who has lived here for a long time understands the history.
The bigger issue is whether Brown should be allowed to continuously expand on the East Side by knocking down buildings and by sticking some hideous modern structure as they have done in the past into the fabric of an historic neighborhood. Do you all seriously think they will stop as they allowed block after block? "All cities" are not Providence. Our reputation is built on our existing historic housing. Without it, we'll be just another Dallas or Orlando. We can "stop it". There are other areas for Brown to expand.
Nonsense. Why would Brown spend all that money on a public parking lot? They have a building penciled in to go on that site eventually. In the mean time, they need to do something with the land. They can't let it sit vacant growing weeds or it would **** everybody off. They can't plant nice grass and turn it into greenspace because then the city would insist that it remain greenspace.
Brown doesn't mind it one bit if they urinate on your leg and tell you it's raining. These building were bought for a specific Brown academic building in mind, and that academic building on that specific Brook St. site was cancelled over a year ago. So as they tear down this half-a-city-block and pave over hundreds of square feet on land that was grass, be certain they'll "say" they have "another" building in mind in the near future. Meanwhile the get ride of houses that they never wanted in the first place, they wanted the land. And seven months ago, when the sidewalk was torn up to remove the electrical leads to these seven houses, Brown never bothered to fix the street, leaving a gravel path instead.
Which leads to this point you made, GeoffD:
Quote:
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....
There are federal and, in some places, state programs for helping landlords abate lead problems in apartments with a grant or low interest loan. You've done it, other people have done it, why can't Brown do it? You know, these houses didn't go into disrepair by accident -- Brown hasn't touched these buildings since or before they evicted the tenants. Brown could have simply sold these houses to Brown faculty and staff, they have a program for that, and I'm certain they would have made fine homes.
I think it all gets back to what you said earlier in this thread: it's all about zoning, and, I'd add, about urban planning done by the city of Providence for the residents of College Hill, and not leave CH's fcate -- demise, deformation, or its future and ongoing planning to the university. That's madness. I wonder if a certain someone has insight into the history of the relationship of this community with the many wannabe Robert Moses making poor choices in their Ivory towers.
Last, how much "Brown" is bad for CH? Brown's main campus consists of 471 acres, nearly two-thirds of a square mile. Even the Vatican has less land! And you also mentioned the unique problems with a growing urban campus. Well, Brown only has a total of 9,073 undergrad and grad students, or a density of 19.2 students per acre; Columbia has a total of 29,870 students (8,559 in undergraduate programs and 21,311 in postgraduate programs) and consumes only 32 acres for a density of 933 students per acre. That's 48x more efficient use of land by the Lions. Maybe the Bears should learn a lesson from the Lions and knock it off with their program of Lebensraum.
Last, how much "Brown" is bad for CH? Brown's main campus consists of 471 acres, nearly two-thirds of a square mile. Even the Vatican has less land! And you also mentioned the unique problems with a growing urban campus. Well, Brown only has a total of 9,073 undergrad and grad students, or a density of 19.2 students per acre; Columbia has a total of 29,870 students (8,559 in undergraduate programs and 21,311 in postgraduate programs) and consumes only 32 acres for a density of 933 students per acre. That's 48x more efficient use of land by the Lions. Maybe the Bears should learn a lesson from the Lions and knock it off with their program of Lebensraum.
I don't think anyone in Providence would like to see density on that scale. Talk about what a nightmare that would be for the surrounding area...
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.
