Brown Isn't Always a Good Neighbor (university, to relocate, black)

[mp775]

Originally Posted by ormari

Brown's presence on College Hill is no secret, and a parking lot is a minor change to what is there now.

A parking lot is an enormous change to a block of seven houses, perhaps even greater a change than Be
Brown's usual monstrosities like Barus & Holley, the Science Library, or the new engineering building.

[AlfieBoy]

Originally Posted by mp775

A parking lot is an enormous change to a block of seven houses, perhaps even greater a change than Be
Brown's usual monstrosities like Barus & Holley, the Science Library, or the new engineering building.

The parking lot will be a commercial enterprise, not a "by permit only" lot, and that's a huge new set of real problems. A permit-only lot has, typically, the same Brown people every day and they probably leave their car parked for eight hours. A commercial lot sells parking in small time increments and a single space will turn over multiple times during the day and night hours. These are not Brown faculty or students, they are not here to work or learn. No, they are here to go to the many youngish bars and fast food joints, to walk Thayer; many will leave later at night, possibly as late as the w/e 2am closing time. Some will leave tipsy, most will leave loudly. And they will leave this place more congested, louder, and dirtier.

The few remaining houses? They will now have a parking lot as their view, and all the many blessing that sort of enterprise affords, and at all sorts of hours. And that is Brown's gift to a residential neighborhood.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by mp775

A parking lot is an enormous change to a block of seven houses, perhaps even greater a change than Be
Brown's usual monstrosities like Barus & Holley, the Science Library, or the new engineering building.

It's an enormous change to the land on which those houses sit, obviously. My point was that overall it is a minor change to the blocks immediately surrounding the site. It feels like a mixed use area to me as it stands, not purely residential.

Regardless, it appears they did in fact hold public hearings about this over a period of 18 months.

Originally Posted by Brown Daily Herald

A new Providence zoning ordinance could go into effect by the end of this year that would streamline commercial corridor guidelines, reform parking regulations, create new transit-oriented development zones and form a new landmarked historical district.

The ordinance, which is currently in its fifth draft, has undergone 18 months of public comment and revisions by both an advisory committee and a city planning committee. The City Council held a hearing on the measure Wednesday afternoon. The new regulations are likely to be adopted in November and would go into effect 30 days later, said Robert Azar, director of current planning at the city’s Department of Planning and Development.
…

On College Hill, the ordinance would maintain west Thayer Street as an institutional zone that is heavily restricted to commercial development, while expanding the commercial zone on east Thayer Street to the western side of Brook Street. That commercial zone will be part of a new overlay district — an area in which two zoning categories, such as institutional and commercial designations, overlap — that will make the University’s development in the area easier.

Did anyone here voice their displeasure during the hearings? I didn't. Maybe the hearings were designed to silence residents, but five revisions indicates some feedback was incorporated into the plan. Yes, it did get approved.

The zoning of the blocks in the vicinity of these particular structures was changed to commercial back at the end of 2014, as this map shows.

I do hope they save at least some of those houses by moving them. There is one in particular that stands out to me as being worth saving. Alfie, maybe you should go chain yourself to one of them. Occupy Brook Street!

[ormari]

Originally Posted by AlfieBoy

The parking lot will be a commercial enterprise, not a "by permit only" lot, and that's a huge new set of real problems. A permit-only lot has, typically, the same Brown people every day and they probably leave their car parked for eight hours. A commercial lot sells parking in small time increments and a single space will turn over multiple times during the day and night hours. These are not Brown faculty or students, they are not here to work or learn. No, they are here to go to the many youngish bars and fast food joints, to walk Thayer; many will leave later at night, possibly as late as the w/e 2am closing time. Some will leave tipsy, most will leave loudly. And they will leave this place more congested, louder, and dirtier.

I would think the city could control late night hours of operation by ordinance. However, I do suspect that adjacent residential neighborhoods probably want the cars that are already coming in to park someplace other than in front of their houses.

[AlfieBoy]

Originally Posted by ormari

I would think the city could control late night hours of operation by ordinance. However, I do suspect that adjacent residential neighborhoods probably want the cars that are already coming in to park someplace other than in front of their houses.

It's paid parking so I think frugal invaders from suburbia will still seek out parking spaces in front of houses. As to the city placing boundaries on hours? The city? Place limits on Brown? I guess the PVD government hasn't heard that slaves were freed, and slavery abolished.

Originally Posted by ormari

...

Did anyone here voice their displeasure during the hearings? I didn't. Maybe the hearings were designed to silence residents, but five revisions indicates some feedback was incorporated into the plan. Yes, it did get approved.

The zoning of the blocks in the vicinity of these particular structures was changed to commercial back at the end of 2014, as this map shows.

I hadn't heard of the zoning changes until recently.

Gee. I wonder, who could have possible written, influenced and expedited the approval of these regs, regs that, darned it, just happen to benefit just one organization:

On College Hill, the ordinance would maintain west Thayer Street as an institutional zone that is heavily restricted to commercial development, while expanding the commercial zone on east Thayer Street to the western side of Brook Street. That commercial zone will be part of a new overlay district — an area in which two zoning categories, such as institutional and commercial designations, overlap — that will make the University’s development in the area easier.

And I love this money quote from a Brown paid propagandist:

Originally Posted by BDH

“Zoning is so important because it guides growth across the city,” said Marisa Quinn, vice president for public affairs and University relations. “Our focus has been encouraging the city to think about the value that institutions play in terms of the character and culture and economy of the city.”

"Character?" As in, you know, a commercial surface parking lot?

I love how developers that want to cram in every possible inch within the footprint to maximize profits. And they chafe at public inspection (of which there won't be any, going forward):

Originally Posted by BDH

Construction projects in the overlay district will still be required to follow the base commercial guidelines of the area, such as height and parking restrictions, but the University will no longer have to apply for a special-use permit to build in the area. Requiring the permit had made University development unpredictable and made outside groups more reluctant to partner with the University on construction plans since they were contingent on city approval, Quinn said.

Well that's just a damned shame, huh? Every contractor has to go through the process for specific projects, and large or small firms, they seem to be able to comply with the law. I can absolutely see where Brown wanted to pull the shade down as they butcher the hood.

Originally Posted by ormari

Alfie, maybe you should go chain yourself to one of them. Occupy Brook Street!

I will if you'll symbolically burn a bra. Deal?

[ormari]

Originally Posted by AlfieBoy

...
I love how developers that want to cram in every possible inch within the footprint to maximize profits. And they chafe at public inspection (of which there won't be any, going forward):



Well that's just a damned shame, huh? Every contractor has to go through the process for specific projects, and large or small firms, they seem to be able to comply with the law. I can absolutely see where Brown wanted to pull the shade down as they butcher the hood.

You've got your editing all messed up… with your response attributed to me. But while you sort that out, zoning changes took place all over the city for multiple stakeholders. You have some reading to do. See what happens when you don't pay attention to local news?

Developers cramming in every possible inch within the footprint to maximize profits? Isn't that sort of like the efficiency you were espousing earlier in this thread?

Actually, developers large and small complain that the city's process impedes getting anything done. "Do you see cranes in the sky? I don't." Of course, those impediments do maintain character of the city.

I will if you'll symbolically burn a bra. Deal?

Why, do you have an old one you'll donate to the cause?

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by ormari

Yes, but you've essentially provided what I already provided, only linked from RI DOH. The containment requirement does not mean tenting is required.

What part of "containment" do you fail to understand? Explain how else you would contain lead paint when you're doing surface prep on the outside of a building? In 2016, you can't just climb up on a ladder and start scraping, sanding, or sandblasting. Your neighbors are unlikely to report you if you're doing it as a DIY project but Brown University would get sued by the abutters if they did it to some *cough* historic properties *cough* they had just purchased.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

What part of "containment" do you fail to understand? Explain how else you would contain lead paint when you're doing surface prep on the outside of a building? In 2016, you can't just climb up on a ladder and start scraping, sanding, or sandblasting. Your neighbors are unlikely to report you if you're doing it as a DIY project but Brown University would get sued by the abutters if they did it to some *cough* historic properties *cough* they had just purchased.

I would ask you the same question. Containment was outlined in the document from EPA: a horizontal barrier below to catch the flakes (tarp), HEPA vacuums on sanding equipment (if used), and in certain cases only, a vertical barrier, etc. No tent required. Did you read anything I wrote and process it?

I am not talking about a DIY project, though DIY projects are subject to the same regulations. It was in the pamphlet I linked, which your Lead-Safe licensed Remodeler/Renovator contractor gave you, and which you apparently didn't read.

Lead-Safe licensed contractors all over the region use this approved technique.

You are right about Brown though: AlfieBoy would probably be reporting them, deserved or not. But AlfieBoy already mentioned that Brown has a faculty housing program, and part of that generally involves them renovating pre-1978 structures. I know of a number of cases where Brown has bought old housing stock, renovated it (unscathed by neighbors!) and then sold it to faculty (with the right of first refusal in the event the faculty member chooses to sell).

[mp775]

Originally Posted by ormari

Regardless, it appears they did in fact hold public hearings about this over a period of 18 months.

That's for the zoning overlay, not the parking lot. And the overlay specifically reduces off-street parking requirements because surface parking is anathema to the character of the neighborhood.

I do hope they save at least some of those houses by moving them. There is one in particular that stands out to me as being worth saving.

Too late; demo (specifically, asbestos removal) already started.

[ormari]

Originally Posted by mp775

That's for the zoning overlay, not the parking lot. And the overlay specifically reduces off-street parking requirements because surface parking is anathema to the character of the neighborhood.

Correct, at that time Brown was looking to build a building. The point was that through the zoning process, the fate of the residential aspect of that little stretch was cemented. Regarding surface parking requirements being reduced, isn't that less to do with the character of that specific neighborhood and more to do with a general reduction in parking requirements city wide due to current urban planning best practices?

Originally Posted by mp775

Too late; demo (specifically, asbestos removal) already started.

They'd have to remove the asbestos anyway, whether they moved the houses or razed them.

I wonder if they even tried to relocate them.

Now I'm thinking that instead of a brutalist parking garage, Brown should see if they could get Frank Gehry to design a parking garage that looks like a multi-car pile-up.