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.
Reminds me of the cautionary tale of the Carnegie Abbey Tower in Portsmouth. A real estate debacle in Portsmouth which continues to this day. As far as I know, still 2/3 vacant. Massive failure by an outside developer with zero understanding of the RI market. And this was, I believe 22 stories, although you can see the tower from many points in the East Bay.
How does Portsmouth remind you of Providence??? Although, I do agree that maybe even the Providence market cannot yet support this.
Our metro area has the population of 1.6 million people. If the market will support this tower then it would be great to have it and others. The more life, jobs, shopping and entertainment we build into the core of our metro the healthier our state will become.
P.S. If we are going to lose property taxes due to preservation of peoples' views then we need to tax those properties with a view tax that will compensate us for the loss tax money.
Reminds me of the cautionary tale of the Carnegie Abbey Tower in Portsmouth. A real estate debacle in Portsmouth which continues to this day. As far as I know, still 2/3 vacant. Massive failure by an outside developer with zero understanding of the RI market. And this was, I believe 22 stories, although you can see the tower from many points in the East Bay.
Since Portsmouth isn't in desperate need of tax revenue & under water in unfunded liabilities, the comparison isn't quite apt. The Carnegie Abby idea of "build it and they will come" did fail. But, the idea of a signature high rise in a promising small city seems to make more sense than one towering over the bay in a sleepy little town.
Our metro area has the population of 1.6 million people. If the market will support this tower then it would be great to have it and others. The more life, jobs, shopping and entertainment we build into the core of our metro the healthier our state will become.
P.S. If we are going to lose property taxes due to preservation of peoples' views then we need to tax those properties with a view tax that will compensate us for the loss tax money.
Good point. Views & vistas generally aren't taxable property because they don't belong to anyone. However, they are desirable & do have incredible value. Many home buyers pay dearly for "view" property, especially where it is unlikely to ever be blocked by others (waterfront, mountains & high floor city views to name a few).
As far as whether the area could/would support this big of a residential building is certainly a good point. Seeing as the area is still a work in progress. A large residential building could been a boon to the other development going on over there. However, the debate of the height brings up my question.
If it was twice as wide but half as high yielding roughly the same occupancy would people still feel the same opposition? I know it's not likely since have a limited footprint to work with. At about 450' of height vs 225-250' is the height blocking that many more views? vs twice as wide? Who's views are being impacted with those top 150-200' or so? not really any other tall buildings in that area. half the height would make the project the approximate size of waterplace towers. Think it would still have a decent impact being so close to the I way but since it'd be pretty separated from the main downtown high rises. I think it'll ultimately come down to the aesthetics of the building. Tall and iconic, easy on the eyes with pleasant design.....great. Big and blah....not so much.
Would this have a better chance as a mixed use building more so than some ground floor commercial? Say half the floors as living and another few floors as office space in addition to parking and commercial at street level, easier sell?
Good point. Views & vistas generally aren't taxable property because they don't belong to anyone. However, they are desirable & do have incredible value. Many home buyers pay dearly for "view" property, especially where it is unlikely to ever be blocked by others (waterfront, mountains & high floor city views to name a few).
There is such a thing as view rights or easements in real estate deeds in which case the view does belong to someone.
Generally, as far as cities go, those who have connected or reconnected to their waterfronts for the public good, and not for a privileged few, have seen a revival of the city. Baltimore is a case in point. http://baltimorewaterfront.com/waterfront-history/
There is such a thing as view rights or easements in real estate deeds in which case the view does belong to someone.
Fortunately there aren't any view easements on the 195 land that I'm aware of.
Quote:
Generally, as far as cities go, those who have connected or reconnected to their waterfronts for the public good, and not for a privileged few, have seen a revival of the city. Baltimore is a case in point. Waterfront History | Baltimore Waterfront
Baltimore revitalized its waterfront by building a lot of highrises:
The waterfront will still be accessible to people - there will be a five acre park between Fane's parcel and the river. Stopping a development so someone living or working a half mile away has a river view would be catering more to the "privileged few" than allowing the development.
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.
Last edited by Hollytree; 02-05-2018 at 12:32 PM..
There is such a thing as view rights or easements in real estate deeds in which case the view does belong to someone.
Generally, as far as cities go, those who have connected or reconnected to their waterfronts for the public good, and not for a privileged few, have seen a revival of the city. Baltimore is a case in point. Waterfront History | Baltimore Waterfront
It also recorded a record number of homicides last year (in a time where we are nationally near a 50 year low), a cesspool of a city if there ever was one.
Since Portsmouth isn't in desperate need of tax revenue & under water in unfunded liabilities, the comparison isn't quite apt. The Carnegie Abby idea of "build it and they will come" did fail. But, the idea of a signature high rise in a promising small city seems to make more sense than one towering over the bay in a sleepy little town.
Yeah, it's an apples to oranges comparison. You're talking about a highrise residential development in an urban core within walking distance to jobs, shopping, schools, hospitals, dining, etc. as well as public transportation vs. The Tower at Carnegie which is isolated and secluded away from the above by design. It's the polar opposite of the Fain proposal and a false equivalency. The target demo for either place is not the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mp775
Fortunately there aren't any view easements on the 195 land that I'm aware of.
Exactly. If there were, then there would be a legitimate argument about the views. If there aren't easements or rights in place, then there's really no argument other than "I just don't like it!"
Quote:
Baltimore revitalized its waterfront by building a lot of highrises. The waterfront will still be accessible to people - there will be a five acre park between Fane's parcel and the river. Stopping a development so someone living or working a half mile away has a river view would be catering more to the "privileged few" than allowing the development.
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.
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.
