JimmyGreaves

It appears that the big problem is that we have no process in place to proactively promote these types of projects in the proper manner that they require. Developers do this for a living. We at the grassroots seem to be constantly reacting to bad strip-mall development that show no respect for the traditionally urban character of our cities that both promotes a sense of place and provides a benefit to its residents, and the results of this reactivity do not seem to be effective. If those advocating for the station's preservation had a formal plan with funding sources, construction quotes, deliverable dates, and short-term community development funding (similar to funding tied to legislation like the Community Redevelopment Act), the neighborhood and the city would have, in my opinion, been fully supportive of this. Long-term, this is the solution but it takes time and money which is obviously a challenge given grassroots organization's funding problems and volunteers trying to balance work, life, and community. Maybe a Providence Tomorrow type project in all cities and town in the state if the answer. That way, at least the public can participate and formally implement urban friendly development into the formal zoning ordinances.

What is their plan to save the station?

The demolition of Penn Station in NY was the spark that started the large preservation movement in NYC. Maybe something similar will happen here.

The neighborhood will have a pharmacy. There's a 24 hour Walgreens less than a quarter-mile south on Broad Street.

Brick...You make a good point, and, ultimately, residents of the neighborhood will have to make a choice of what they think is the best way to improve their neighborhood. Did the demolition of the Leroy and the subsequent Walgreens that was built make an overwhelming positive impact? If the answer is no, can the effects of that choice help residents take a step back and maybe consider that a different direction is necessary. If the answer is yes, then you're right, the preservation argument becomes weaker.

I can't make it tonight, unfortunately, but I did e-mail my being in favor of eminient domain to all the councilors that I could find addresses for. Hope it helps.

As nervous as I'm sure you're feeling, you can bet that the City Council is feeling just as much if not more pressure, because they know they are about to face a storm of opposition tonight. Just speak about the benefits that eminent domain will bring to the city and how you and your fellow residents will benefit. That's all you can do.

Maybe eltron can better address this issue. Here's his post yesterday that I reference. http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...8301&st=119

But the point is, even if CF did approve the permit, the demo is still not legal because Pawtucket would still need to sign off on it. Did the developer assume that CF approval was all he needed to proceed? Pawtucket could still approve eminient domain and Seelbinder's retail plans for this site would fall through. It makes no sense to me what the developer would have to gain by proceeding along the route he's going. Most importantly, I have not heard of any steps being taken to ensure the safety of train passengers that might be impacted (no pun intended and probably too light of a description) by falling debris. I think that is the point that would resonate the most at the Council meeting tonight. If this developer lacks the integrity where his bottom line is more important than people's safety, how can the council in good faith not be in favor of eminent domain?

On what grounds? If Pawtucket does not also issue a permit, demolition cannot proceed. Also, how can the developer reasonably ensure the safety of train passengers that are travelling on MBTA and Amtrak trains below?

No where in this Projo report mentions the fact that this demolition was illegal.

No kidding...Maybe they can add wreckless endangerment to illegal demolition charges.

The grass isn't always greener in Providence. This isn't the first time that historic buildings have been illegally demolished, it won't be the last, and it happens in a lot of places (unfortunately). We're not helpless. There can still be a traditionally urban designed station that incorporates intermodal transit and provides a lasting benefit to Pawtucket. Unfortunately, it won't be a building that represents the restored station in as close to its original form as posssible. Hopefully, those involved in this illegal demolition will be prosecuted and held accountable, but this process to transform this decaying station into a well-designed asset for Pawtucket is far from over.

Why don't the officials have the power to stop the demolition without the injuction and stop work order? I would have thought that if a company is unable to produce the permit, any on-site official would have the power to immediately order all demolition to cease without the additional bureaucracy of a judicial order.

Link to the summary of the Providence Tomorrow Citywide Charrette Sessions. http://www.providenceplanning.org/matriarc...e%20summary.pdf

It is difficult for people to attend sessions whether at night or during a weekday when they have jobs or family commitments to balance. The neighborhood charettes will be an opportunity for more interaction with the planning department because Planning will locate an office in each neighborhood for a week, so residents will not have far to go in order to voice their ideas. Kudos to Planning for this. P.S. - For the love of pete Planning, fix your website...please (there, I was nice about it ). Seriously, it's down the majority of the time. How are people who can't attend the charettes e-mail suggestions or post pictures? Ok...gripe over.

I thought it might be useful to reference Miami's similar comprehensive planning effort for some perspective. http://www.miami21.org/

I agree that you could make that argument, but you could also make the argument that high density development in conjunction with a parking ban and its equitable and consistent enforcement, our car tax, high insurance cost, and Providence's compactness would provide an incentive for people to seek reliance on other transportation modes which would reduce the need for more spaces (obviously, RIPTA and the creation of 24-hour neighborhoods where people feel safe walking at all hours would be a huge part of this). I think a big part of Providence Tomorrow will be identifying the high growth areas of the city that can support high-density, multi-family residences. Building out Downcity and the new Waterfront area are two of many options. That said, all Providence neighborhoods should be able to support a broad mix of housing options. The challenge will be identifying where multi-family residences make sense and creating a parking policy to accommodate it. More residences in Neighborhood Business Districts on major bus lines would be an option here. The point is, in my opinion, the parking ban can be turned from a negative into a positive if we as a city can reduce the demand for automobile traffic as opposed to increasing the supply of parking spaces. Those who view this goal cynically (not pointing fingers here...just speaking in general terms) should know that Rhode Island transit users once numbered over 100 million people as recently as 1951, and we need to think in terms that the Providence of tomorrow will not necessarily be similar to the Providence of today (and its corresponding need for parking).

Interesting article about getting local teenagers involved in city planning. Maybe we should reach out to them about joining our group (half-kidding). Of course, we would need to find a meeting place with non-alcoholic options. http://www.projo.com/metro/content/projo_2...21.1e651aa.html

I certainly sympathize with Recchia's need for a car, but, thinking logically, if Providence seems attractive to ex New Yorkers and Bostonians and with commuter rail service to Boston and TF Green expanding coupled with Providence and Rhode Island's compact nature, I think there might be a market for residential units with no parking.

There was an interesting article in the Journal on Friday where a study by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research in 2003 found that Rhode Island had the fifth highest cost of living. I mention this because it's an important thing to consider as we engage ourselves in Providence Tomorrow. Yes, there are affordable parts of the city to live in. However, as we talk about new office space construction to attract companies or why companies locate out in the suburbs, high cost of living for individuals and high property taxes on businesses are two important challenges to deal with that have a direct impact on these scenarios. As a group, we need to develop cost solutions in addition to development solutions so that said development solutions can succeed. We want more retail in Providence, but the sales tax is 2% lower in Mass. We want more office space in Downcity, but our commercial property taxes are the third highest in the U.S. We want to attract more residents. However, for many, the cost of living here outweighs the benefits. This is not a gripe session. It's simply layering some financial perspective on top of the other important urban planning issues. Looking forward to the possible solutions we can formulate.

How about business districts that have an oversaturation of one type of business within a small area? That way, the city can take stock of services lacking a neighborhood should one of these businesses relocate.

I was also pleased with the event. We have a lot of good ideas in our forum group and it's great to see us getting as organized as we are. Looking forward to meeting more UP Providence posters.

In my neighborhood, I've noticed a lot more street signs have been replaced which is encouraging. However, we all know the challenge of navigating the city due to poor signage, and many corners still do not have street signs at all. The Traffic Engineering Department should be contacted at 781-4044 for street sign replacement. They do eventually replace them. However, be patient. In my experience, it usually doesn't happen for a month or two.

Really enjoyable meeting last night. It's great to see how passionate we are and how committed we are to be a positive influence on urban development policy in the city. Look forward to seeing all who attend Wednesday's meeting.