Zoning Board of Review

[Garris]

Jen, you're obviously very knowledgable and experienced in this process and we all certainly appreciate your contributing. I have several questions, though...

variances on variances on variances...

And as someone who sees a lot of major land development projects in their early form i know darn well that there is plenty of room for compromise--on everyone's part. And i definately do not see enough negotiation and compromise.

Aren't the variances being given out in part to compensate for the fact that our zoning code isn't as friendly to height and density as the city would like? And efforts to change the zoning code so all of these variances wouldn't be necessary has run up against huge community resistance...

As one of my neighbors puts it, our currently zoning code is "relentlessly suburban. Many of our urban centers such as Wayland Square, Federal Hill, [Hope Village], Thayer Street, etc wouldn't be possible to replicate anew today with our current zoning..."

This is a regional Northeastern trend that since most of this area is essentially "built out" and land costs are high, the only way for developers to get good return is to build denser and higher.

And I'm not talking about mega-sized developments here, but of a scope for which there is already neighborhood precedents constructed decades ago during the "halcion" days... Name one project proposed for a neighborhood that would be the tallest or densest building in its area (save 110 Westminster, which I hope even the most hardened anti-urbanites would agree isn't inappropriate for that locale)...EDIT: Metrolofts as well...

Providence is a stubborn, proud town and until developers and elected officials figure out how to connect with the people in a way that is open and flexible, the epic battles over things like density and height will continue to plague the process...

So, reading between the lines, are you suggesting that most of the opponents of height/density actually realize that they aren't that bad, but are battling them out of spite because the process isn't more open? If so...

calling the inhabitants of such well established neighborhoods rubes and idiots and NIMBYs for not understanding the importance of density and height doesn't do much

... what would you call such individuals acting against global community self interest and instead acting out of spite?

Listen, I think truth is a three edged sword. The process can certainly stand to be cleaned up on all levels and developers can and should do a better job interacting with the public (although, to be honest, Providence has the most public debate over projects of any area I've ever lived in by far...). However, I think some community groups (the India Point folks come most immediately to mind) have to show the slightest of realizations that, in the end, this is a city.

When you have such achingly conservative and historically sensitive groups like the PPS supporting far more urban development of the waterfront, for example, than the neighborhood groups, something is terribly wrong...

- Garris

[runturtlerun]

Since the area between Dean Street and the Service Road is chiefly occupied by auto body shops and surface parking, what exactly is the character that is being threatened with take over?

I can understand the resistance to the height of Belmonte Castello as it is well within an existing neighborhood, not on the highway (though it is very close to a highway) But a project like MetroLofts, or 333 West Fountain will only serve to enhance the neighborhoods further west and connect them to Downcity.

Well, the immediate block of the Metrolofts project is three to four story shops and residences, and the proposed building is 20 stories on Washington and Westminster Streets, not just the service road

[Garris]

Don't worry, I don't feel "called out" , but I think your example is a great one to use to illustrate my point about how "far out" some of these neighborhood groups can be...

Garris, let me ask you – how would you feel if someone proposed to put a 20 story building next to where you live? I would argue that you would likely feel that it was out of context – and in Wayland Square, I think you would be correct.

I completely agree that a 20 story anything would be wildly inappropriate for Wayland Square, as there's nothing close to that size or scale here...

That said, a four story condo with underground parking was actually proposed for the property right next door to my condo (the Katherine Gibbs Building site) by Armory. Listening to people from the neighborhood here, you'd think the world was ending. Some comments heard from individuals without exaggeration were things like:

- It's going to cut off our light...

- It's going to impact our air quality...

- I'm going to miss seeing the stars at night...

- Where will the UPS trucks park?

- This is Providence, not Manhattan...

- I moved away from Boston due to projects like this...

Now, unlike your hypothesized 20 story building, there's lots of precedence for 4+ story structures in Wayland Square. Wayland Manor, The Eldorado, and several other (mostly Bilodeau owned/managed) apartment buildings, many from the 1920's or 30's, come immediately to mind. Some are even on the guilded Blackstone Ave... Now, no one even thinks twice about any of those buildings today, since they're just part of the fabric of the neighborhood and many are heralded as pristine examples of their eras. But if any of those now treasured 1920 structures were to be proposed today, people would go nuts...

Even opponents of the 4 story condo agreed that it was a pretty building as represented on the render. The neighborhood eventually negotiated them down to 3.5 stories (I'm serious) with a kind of catelevered half floor on top. It looks kind of odd to my eyes, lacking much of the architectural integrity of the original 4 story building, but the neighborhood considers it a victory.

What was gained? An uglier building designed by committee?

I believe that the service road and major avenues such as Westminster Street ARE good locations for greater density, but not a density that is so totally out of character with the existing area that it threatens to take it over.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic here, but threatens to take over what? I drive by these areas every day, and there's really no appreciable neigbhorhoods in those areas as yet. Isn't that the city's intent, to actually create real, thriving neighborhoods there? I always feel sorry for those poor cute shops on Westminster that there's virtually no one living there to support them.

Does the Crossroads RI building "take over" the West End? It was built in 1913, and had to be radical for that time. Or do we all accept it as part of the landscape, as we eventually would any other of the structures now proposed for the West end?

- Garris

[runturtlerun]

Garris, the examples you are giving in Wayland Square are extreme

[eltron]

Aren't the variances being given out in part to compensate for the fact that our zoning code isn't as friendly to height and density as the city would like? And efforts to change the zoning code so all of these variances wouldn't be necessary has run up against huge community resistance...

As one of my neighbors puts it, our currently zoning code is "relentlessly suburban. Many of our urban centers such as Wayland Square, Federal Hill, [Hope Village], Thayer Street, etc wouldn't be possible to replicate anew today with our current zoning..."

From my perspective, there is no question that the existing zoning is outdated and not anywhere near adequate for an city of Providence's character...

BUT

Belmonte Castello would still require many variances under the proposed zoning code. The new zoning allows for higher density, less parking, and fixes all sorts of other little procedural things, but this development would still FAR exceed what is allowable, and all the backroom dealing still would go on.

THAT is why people are pissed.

plus its just plain nasty...

[Cotuit]

There's a balance that I'm pretty sure that all of us here, are more or less in agreement on, though we may be viewing the issues from seperate directions. I think we all want community input, some of us are coming from the angle of wanting high density and being sure to integrate that density. Others of us are looking from protecting the neighborhood but an interest in seeing urban and dense development. One side seems to have a much higher (get it, higher ) tolerance for density.

The problem being, that the people who seem to get the most attention in the media, are those who are totally against everything and think they're living in South County in th 20s, not Providence in the 21st century. And these people seem to have a very narrow view on the issues. So while the media is busy following the wingnut story, the back room deals are being made, and those of us that have a valid interest, and voice, are being left out.

[runturtlerun]

The problem being, that the people who seem to get the most attention in the media, are those who are totally against everything and think they're living in South County in th 20s, not Providence in the 21st century. And these people seem to have a very narrow view on the issues. So while the media is busy following the wingnut story, the back room deals are being made, and those of us that have a valid interest, and voice, are being left out.

Thank you! This is exactly the issue -- most of us are, for the most part, reasonable people, and we are left out of both the media story and the public discussion of many of these projects. As a result, projects are either denied or rammed through, with very little in between.

[Jerry2]

You have thrown out the word "hypocritical" several times in this thread, but what exactly is hypocritical about opposition to a project that is wildly out of scale with its surroundings, ugly, and SO inconsistant with zoning (and even under the new zoning would need variances) that its just laughable? Yeah, the neighborhood needs work, but this one tower sure as hell is not gonna make it better, and it will make it worse in many ways.

How bout we end with the rude, confrontational, and unproductive posts....?

I'm not trying to be confrontational here. You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine. I don't know where that comes off as rude. You are obviously concerned about the development patterns around the city, as many a people here are. I think that there are sensible negotiators and people that are radical elitists....similar to politics. I love Providence and I always have. However, I think that the radical elitists do exist and constitute the majority of the people that oppose everything and anything. You may be a sensible negotiator Eltron and I might be blind. This building boom is ending. Period. lenders are backing out. Investors are getting picky and yet neighborhood investment is still coming thru our doors. I think that's great and I don't think we can afford to lose sensible development projects that enhance our neighborhoods. I think B. Castello will enhance the lower Federal Hill area and the slope going down the Hill towards Eagle sQUARE will limit the perception of a massive skyscraper. People that Garris encountered do exist and I believe constitute a large majority of these people.....and I don't think that these people are long-time residents. Sensible discussion is sometimes necessary when it comes to new development, but is a deal killer when the developer leaves for greener pastures.

People that come out against projects with radical ideas tend to be the people that have primarily fostered Providence's resurgence. They tend to be people that just moved here or have recently moved here and are more concerned with THEIR quality of life rather than the community. I find that selfish. I can tell you as a lifer that the level of development impresses me and many of the people that have grown up here. It's one of the reasons why some people that have left come back. People like Brussat and others look at the glass half empty rather than half full. Progression does not mean leaving the zoning laws alone. It does not mean givng the FF's the contract they want. It means a collaboration and an effort to move forward in a direction that would benefit all. If a major fortune 500 company moved across my street and constructed a high-rise, I'd probably be pissed too....but the overall benefit to the city would help me change my mind. Whether I stay in Providence or not, I have 30 years vested in this town and my family ties lie here. I am concerned about the city and I will always be which is more than I can say for many people....My 2 cents..

[jencoleslaw]

the folks who came out against this project were a mix of people who have owned property in the neighborhood at least 7 years to several people who were born in the neighborhood. Just so you know.

I agree, btw, that FH is a "dressed up slum." Atwells is a veneer that doesn't stretch into the streets between Atwells and Broadway. But how do projects like this one make, say, Penn Street better?

[jencoleslaw]

oh, but since you involked the epic battle of eagle square (which many of us believe changed everything) you must know that without that group of neighbors, artists, business owners, preservationists, urbanists (from ACROSS the city) etc, eagle square would be, right now a 13 acre single story L shaped shopping plaza with big box retail with something like 5 times the amount of parking necessary. Oh, and all the historic buildings would be GONE. Welcome to Rt 2 in Warwick, my friends!

Did we fight that awful project because it was in our back yard? no, we fought it because it was an abominable design for an URBAN neighborhood, that served no one, reduced artists' live work space, was not mixed use, was only single story, increased the amount of impermeable surface, would have probably made the river even dirtier etc. the fact that it was a half mile from where some of us live was merely a by-product.

[jencoleslaw]

And Garris: yes, the zoning code is not perfect, but it is a framework, and every time a variance is granted that isn't necessary such as a use variance or a dimensional variance or a landscape variance or a parking variance, we dismantle that frame work a little bit and eventually, like now it becomes a document that is merely a GUIDE or a suggestion rather than the rule.

Variances should be exceptions to the rule. You make a good case for increased density and promise to build some public greenspace--you are willing to make a deal that zoning will grant a taller building if you build affordable housing--all good things. But for developers to go before zoning and say that the Walgreens refuses to do zero setback, and needs all its parking in front and it needs a much bigger sign, etc, well, that's just nonsense. And that is what is happening in zoning. Good projects will get variances and bad projects should get called on the carpet (or the terrazzo) for wasting everyone's time with something that clearly isn't allowed.

maybe this should be moved to the zoning thread?

ps. i don't know anyone personally who fights projects out of spite. not even me, and i can be incredibly spiteful!

[Cotuit]

maybe this should be moved to the zoning thread?

I moved some discussion here from the Belmonte Castello thread.

[Garris]

...every time a variance is granted that isn't necessary such as a use variance or a dimensional variance or a landscape variance or a parking variance, we dismantle that frame work a little bit and eventually, like now it becomes a document that is merely a GUIDE or a suggestion rather than the rule.

I absolutely agree, and I'd like to see the zoning code be a hard and fast rule as well. I, too, hate the idea of variances.

That doesn't address my complaints, though, that a small, vocal minority of people (that as Cotuit mentioned get an oversized amount of media exposure) are trying to prevent more urban planning and zoning for all of Providence, thinking of the city as something more along the lines of East Greenwich. We all need to try to oppose those viewpoints...

I think someone put it really well during our last UP meeting... There is a difference between community group input and community groups making the decisions. I think there's a point at which community groups, like any special interest can and should have their say, and then turn things over to the professional planners. The city planners want to go more urban, and they should have the opportunity to do so...

maybe this should be moved to the zoning thread?

Perhaps so...

A quick question for all involved, though...

How tall (independent of design for the moment) do those of you out there think Belmonte Castello and Metrolofts should maximally be?

- Garris

[jencoleslaw]

i don't honestly care how tall they are, as long as the design doesn't suck and that the developers give something back to the community in the form of green public space, affordable housing--anything! I'm not a 'heightist'. I think the Belmonte will look really stupid just sitting out there, and its too bad that the church was somehow influenced not to object to it, but i think it is an ugly design and does nothing for the neighborhood but perpetuate the idea that the city continues to be a morally bankrupt place in many instances.

at the zoning board of review meeting for this project, objectors were silenced by saying "we are no longer taking testimony" and yet during the deliberation phase at the end of the evening, when things weren't going so well, the developers atty was allowed to cut in (out of order, btw) and request a continuence before the board voted.

I'll stop fighting crappy projects when they 1. are not crappy and 2. are not managed like this.

*shrug*

[Jerry2]

the folks who came out against this project were a mix of people who have owned property in the neighborhood at least 7 years to several people who were born in the neighborhood. Just so you know.

I agree, btw, that FH is a "dressed up slum." Atwells is a veneer that doesn't stretch into the streets between Atwells and Broadway. But how do projects like this one make, say, Penn Street better?

Look...all I can say is that it increases the marketability of the area. The Armory District was a dump too until a few young pioneers and the Armory Revival Co. came in, created, and revitalized a big portion of the area. Federal Hill stands by itself as a commercial area. Without the restaurants, it is essentially a dressed-up dump and it doesn't need to be that way. The location is ideal and it has been screaming for modern residential development. These projects ( B. Castello, Heritage, and Rialto) will help the area and , I think, will create a buzz within the area. We are talking an area less than 1 sq.mile. A few well-designed projects will make a big difference in the area.

[jencoleslaw]

Look...all I can say is that it increases the marketability of the area. The Armory District was a dump too until a few young pioneers and the Armory Revival Co. came in, created, and revitalized a big portion of the area. Federal Hill stands by itself as a commercial area. Without the restaurants, it is essentially a dressed-up dump and it doesn't need to be that way. The location is ideal and it has been screaming for modern residential development. These projects ( B. Castello, Heritage, and Rialto) will help the area and , I think, will create a buzz within the area. We are talking an area less than 1 sq.mile. A few well-designed projects will make a big difference in the area.

the difference between the armory and what is happening on Atwells and on the fringes of the west side is that Armory started out just doing housing. that's it. small scale housing. which helped build and stabilize the neighborhood. fixing up old buildings, building some new buildings, but all in all, neighborhood scale housing.

Federal Hill is NOT a commercial area. Atwells Avenue is. There is a lot more to Federal Hill than Atwells Avenue. To assume that all of Federal Hill will benefit from what happens Atwells is simply not accurate. It is a veneer. It needs to go deeper, not be razed for surface parking for valet parking.

And i agree that a few good, well designed projects can create a buzz, maybe make a difference (what kind of difference is anyone's guess), but are you now going to say that the Belmonte Castello is well designed?

BTW, the Rialto project got very little, if any, opposition. Do you know why? Because they were willing to make trades, height for underground parking made available to the public. Unfortunately they seem to be having problems pulling it off now, but they got what amounts to a pretty easy trip through the system because they offered something back to the community rather than dumping something on the community and thumbing their nose at those who live there....That's an example of a good, forward thinking developer who understands the neighborhood a little better.

I seem to remember there was one guy who opposed it and it has something to do with property lines.

[Jerry2]

the difference between the armory and what is happening on Atwells and on the fringes of the west side is that Armory started out just doing housing. that's it. small scale housing. which helped build and stabilize the neighborhood. fixing up old buildings, building some new buildings, but all in all, neighborhood scale housing.

Federal Hill is NOT a commercial area. Atwells Avenue is. There is a lot more to Federal Hill than Atwells Avenue. To assume that all of Federal Hill will benefit from what happens Atwells is simply not accurate. It is a veneer. It needs to go deeper, not be razed for surface parking for valet parking.

And i agree that a few good, well designed projects can create a buzz, maybe make a difference (what kind of difference is anyone's guess), but are you now going to say that the Belmonte Castello is well designed?

BTW, the Rialto project got very little, if any, opposition. Do you know why? Because they were willing to make trades, height for underground parking made available to the public. Unfortunately they seem to be having problems pulling it off now, but they got what amounts to a pretty easy trip through the system because they offered something back to the community rather than dumping something on the community and thumbing their nose at those who live there....That's an example of a good, forward thinking developer who understands the neighborhood a little better.

I seem to remember there was one guy who opposed it and it has something to do with property lines.

Well, I tend to disagree just a little bit. Atwells Ave. does define the Federal Hill neighborhood and Atwells Ave. lacks a residential component. I didn't say I totally agreed with the design of the building. However, some minor modifications ( like building to the street) would greatly enhance this design. The immediate neighbors that this project could "potentially" affect live on Marcello Street which has less than 5 houses. The opposition to this project is coming from as far as the Armory. Please enlighten me as to how this affects neighbors that far away....A "vested" interest in one's "current" residence ( and I use that term quite figuratively) and community is great, but not necessarily always the right path towards progression.

I guess my point is that Prov. obviously can NOT handle itself. It's fast becoming an elitist suburban community of Boston. It's almost generic in nature and becoming entirely boring. Yawn Development will be driven away. Nightlife is obviously becoming less and less important. There's no resolution to the outdated zoning laws, FF contrcts, and pension funding crisis. It's becoming a city of elitist yuppie self-interest groups. What made it interesting in the 1st place is quickly diminishing and fading away...I don't expect people to agree with me or follow a path of negativity...These are my sentiments. I think there are other urban areas in the country that are way more pro-development, pro-business, and pro-active than cities like Providence that would perpetually like to suspend itself in thr year 1955 lke I said in my previous posts, I will always be from Ri and I will never lose that tie. However, when buying a home becomes a distant dream and the quality of life takes a drop, what is the point of staying here anyway? It's not like the economy is above average.

[Dan]

The immediate neighbors that this project could "potentially" affect live on Marcello Street which has less than 5 houses. The opposition to this project is coming from as far as the Armory. Please enlighten me as to how this affects neighbors that far away....

...I guess my point is that Prov. obviously can NOT handle itself. It's fast becoming an elitist suburban community of Boston. It's almost generic in nature and becoming entirely boring. Yawn Development will be driven away. Nightlife is obviously becoming less and less important. There's no resolution to the outdated zoning laws, FF contrcts, and pension funding crisis. It's becoming a city of elitist yuppie self-interest groups. What made it interesting in the 1st place is quickly diminishing and fading away...

...However, when buying a home becomes a distant dream and the quality of life takes a drop, what is the point of staying here anyway? It's not like the economy is above average.

This is a tough post to follow. In reference to the opposition from West End folks, and the inability of the city to handle itself...

That doesn't address my complaints, though, that a small, vocal minority of people (that as Cotuit mentioned get an oversized amount of media exposure) are trying to prevent more urban planning and zoning for all of Providence, thinking of the city as something more along the lines of East Greenwich. We all need to try to oppose those viewpoints...

It's a select few NIMBYs who are making all the noise. However, in this case, you could be from anywhere and take one look at this thing and choke on your chicken parmesan. Jen is right... it sucks, and you know the developer does not care about the surrounding architecture. I don't think it encourages any quality development or investment in the area of Knight St. in its current form. It is a cheap building on a cheap piece of land catering to upper middle-class buyers. Its a cash cow.

Providence is a relatively affordable place to live in the Northeast and I think the quality of life has improved over the last decade in the city. As far as the distant dream of buying a home - I bought a nice little house for 140k around Christmas of 04. Its the taxes that make you cry. But the truth is the only place you can get in the game cheap is in the South or the Midwest, and there goes your quality of life. Any Yankee who has been to South Carolina knows what I mean. But these issues represent another discussion for another thread...

An 8-story condo building with a fresh, thoughtful design would be a nice fit.

[CtownMikey]

. But the truth is the only place you can get in the game cheap is in the South or the Midwest, and there goes your quality of life. Any Yankee who has been to South Carolina knows what I mean. But these issues represent another discussion for another thread...

An 8-story condo building with a fresh, thoughtful design would be a nice fit.

haahaa can we create that thread please??

[jencoleslaw]

Atwells Avenue doesn't define federal hill any more than Thayer Street defines the east side. There is a lot more to federal hill, including Broadway, Westminster, Dean Street, Decatur Square than just atwells avenue. And to say there's no residential component on atwells is simply not true. That would be like saying that the stretch of Hope Street between Rochambeau and say, Seven Stars has no residential component. Not only are there apartments above stores in both places, but there are apartments one building deep on both sides of both streets. Just because there's no monolith of living doesn't mean a street doesn't have residential units.

I'm all for more residential, car-free density on Atwells Avenue and other places, but i'm still waiting for someone to tell me what this particular project will bring to the rest of the neighborhood. This project got a seemingly record number of variances already, a street abandonment, a demolition permit of a perfectly reuseable building. A case had to be made for all of those things to happen, and i don't think a case was ever made, and now, the developer wants more. More on top of what many believe they never should have received; more on top of a truly ugly building.

and earlier in one of the other threads, folks complained that NIMBYs make too much trouble for projects, and in this thread, we read that people from other neighborhoods shouldn't be making trouble over here. Which is it? Is it that we are all concerned about all of providence, or is it that we should stay in our own neighborhoods and not worry about the state of the entire city? As goes Atwells Avenue (or Gano Street or Broad Street or Elmwood Avenue) goes the rest of the city, and i think it is far healthier for Providence if folks look at Providence as one big backyard, as opposed to letting other neighborhoods fend for themselves, and hope all the crappy stuff goes to someone else's street.

your mileage may vary.

[Cotuit]

Any Yankee who has been to South Carolina knows what I mean. But these issues represent another discussion for another thread...

haahaa can we create that thread please??

No, we're not playing that game.

[gregw]

NIMBYism and a weariness toward development can be frustrating, but I think on the whole Providence is better off as a city where there is a process for getting projects built rather than being a city where developers have a free hand to put up whatever they want.

In general it seems that good projects don't have any problem getting built. No one's complaining about 110 Westminster, Waterplace, or the Westin. No one objects to any of the rehab projects either. Gtech is more controversial but a lot of people who take an interest in architecture basically like it.

It's the architecturally dubious projects that people complain about. They may use height as legal grounds on which to object but the real problem that people have with Sierra Suites, Belmonte Castello is that they're poor examples of architecture--height aside.

[Garris]

i'm still waiting for someone to tell me what this particular project will bring to the rest of the neighborhood. This project got a seemingly record number of variances already, a street abandonment, a demolition permit of a perfectly reuseable building. A case had to be made for all of those things to happen, and i don't think a case was ever made

Again, let me reiterate that I too think this design needs a lot of help, especially on the streetscape elements of it. I also think this project is, to a certain degree, doomed due to a number of factors, including its projected price points, its design, and its stupid name, amongst several reasons.

That said, I see this project as being the Dick Cheney of Providence development proposals: a highly visible magnet of criticism of what everyone thinks is wrong with "the process." The anti-development forces rightly point to all of the things you correctly mention about the back room deals and variances, and the pro-development forces rightly point to all of the perceived roadblocks to anything of urban interest getting done in the city (the previous building there was terrible, and no one will shed a tear over its demolition, and frankly, I've heard 10 times as much moaning from critics about height and denity as I have over design, so the mantra from folks that if the design was better and the process worked better they wouldn't have an issue strikes me as somewhat empty). Both sides are kinda' right...

I also think, unique to amongst enthusiasts here on forums like this, there is the desire to see something, anything, happen on Federal Hill, which is, frankly, not many of our favorite neighborhoods. Many of us think it underachieves dramatically architecturally and some of us wonder out loud where all of this tremendous character and flavor that everyone talks about that needs to be saved is located. I think many believe the neighborhood has tremendous potential and what you may be sensing is some frustration over opposition to the first attempt to develop new there in quite some time.

and earlier in one of the other threads, folks complained that NIMBYs make too much trouble for projects, and in this thread, we read that people from other neighborhoods shouldn't be making trouble over here. Which is it?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Here's what I'd like to see...

A solid, detailed, pro-city, pro-urban approach to planning and zoning that is air tight.

For the developer, this might mean that you're never getting that variance for 12 floors, you'll have to live with 8. Don't complain, don't ask, don't whine, it's set in stone...

For the neighborhoods, it might mean that the waterfront land there is going to be a mixed use esplanade with potential LRT in the future and not green space. Don't complain, don't ask, dont' whine, it's set in stone...

But this will never happen, and in this case, my big complaint is not that you have developers fighting and undermining such planning and zoning. As one developer once told me, they crave rules and direction. Uncertainty is their enemy and can be expensive. No, in this case, you have neighborhood groups fighting it. So that's my complaint right now.

- Garris

[Garris]

NIMBYism and a weariness toward development can be frustrating, but I think on the whole Providence is better off as a city where there is a process for getting projects built rather than being a city where developers have a free hand to put up whatever they want.

I agree... See my post above... Neighborhood groups have to be ready to accept that part of such a process might mean they don't get everything they want...

No one's complaining about 110 Westminster, Waterplace, or the Westin.

You obviously weren't at some of those Providence 2020 meetings...

They may use height as legal grounds on which to object but the real problem that people have with Sierra Suites, Belmonte Castello is that they're poor examples of architecture--height aside.

I was at that first Sierra Suites meeting arguing against the building's architecture (isn't the third one upcoming soon?), and while everyone there should have been honing laser-like on its terrible design, everyone instead was moaning about its height and scale (which are both allowed for that space) and the questionable historical value of the existing building. I think the most beautiful 14 story building in the world could have been presented for that space and most of those opponents would have still been there.

- Garris

[gregw]

You obviously weren't at some of those Providence 2020 meetings...

- Garris

I was there and don't recall anyone complaining about these buildings. I do remember a lot of complaining about potential building near India Point Park and allowing high rises along 95. I also heard some pretty daft ideas about placing housing under highway overpasses, but no one bemoaning 110 or Waterplace.

Again, I get fed up with the anti-development people too but I still think that Providence is better off with such weariness than with a kind of Houston-like anything-goes attitude or with a general sense of apathy.

Keep in mind that Providence's basic conservatism toward development -- which can sometimes be annoying as hell no doubt--is also responsible for keeping the city generally in tact when plans to tear down Benefit St and downtown were floated back in the day.