Jump to content

PROPOSED: Hotel Sierra (aka Sierra Suites)

Cotuit

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Pseudo_Work Hamlet

Pseudo_Work

Posted
Posted

In a perfect world, of course you're right. We've obliterate the parking garage and put the Sierra Suites there. But as some people on the board have pointed out, we can't really play SimCity with such things.

I bet that parking garage is highly economically viable. I bet in an honest moment that the Trinity Rep would be sorry to see it go, as would Bravo and Gracies. I know folks who drive in from South County to see shows there, and that's where they always park. Would they come back as frequently if they knew they'd be hunting for spaces?

I'd rather put pressure on the parking garage owners to reskin that structure to something more harmonious with SS or the Trinity and reconfigure some streetfront space for retail.

Faced with that stark reality, would I rather save that rather unremarkable old 2 or 3 floor building or build a 15 floor Sierra Suites with ground level retail? Which is better for the street? I'd pick the later, as long as its design was acceptable, which I think it now is. I understand the perspective of the former, though.

- Garris

PS: BTW, keeping this on topic, does anyone know Sierra Suites timetable for building here?

Are we not already playing Sim City with a lot of things? Isn't that what this is all about? Also, for the record, I never said that the parking structure should necessarily be knocked down, but rather agreed with the idea of the hotel using the existing parking structure as part of their design (which includes, you guessed it, another parking structure), and building above/around it. In any event it seems wise, being such a compact city and one that claims to be progressive, to begin doing things to discourage the culture of the private car, but that's a whole other discussion.

I also agree that it isn't so much the grit that makes Washington Street cool as it is the fabric of the street itself, however that does NOT necessarily justify tearing down a historic building that could be (and is) in use and contributing to the local economy and culture. To group the grit and the building together in order to make a case to tear it down borders on gentrification. This is all relative; just because the building doesn't take up a city block, and isn't covered in polychromed brick and stone details doesn't necessarily make it somehow un-historic. All of these things work together toward creating the unforgettable character that people love about Providence. How anybody gets off knocking things like this down in order to somehow "preserve" that is beyond me, because all we're doing is removing the puzzle pieces.

There's an entire block of surface parking just down the street. Why not do something with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There's an entire block of surface parking just down the street. Why not do something with that?

That's when it becomes Sim City, the owners own what they own. I'm sure if the owners had their druthers, there are bunch of other parcels they'd love to develop, but they have to work with what they have.

As for the surface parking down the block, a letter to its owners, The Providence Journal, couldn't hurt in the effort to get them to give it up and allow something to be built there. I'm sure if the Journal put that block on the market, it would be scooped up in two seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pseudo_Work Hamlet

Pseudo_Work

Posted
Posted

That's when it becomes Sim City, the owners own what they own. I'm sure if the owners had their druthers, there are bunch of other parcels they'd love to develop, but they have to work with what they have.

As for the surface parking down the block, a letter to its owners, The Providence Journal, couldn't hurt in the effort to get them to give it up and allow something to be built there. I'm sure if the Journal put that block on the market, it would be scooped up in two seconds.

Didn't know that's who owned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Garris Town

Garris

Posted
Posted

In any event it seems wise, being such a compact city and one that claims to be progressive, to begin doing things to discourage the culture of the private car, but that's a whole other discussion.

No, it's actually is part of the same discussion when you're talking about how to use that building and that space. And I, and almost everyone here, agrees with you 110% in the aggregate. This is exactly the type of thing that master plans and, especially, zoning will hopefully address in the future. But that pro-pedestrian/anti-auto stuff isn't on the books here yet, so we're left with what we're left with. It's the reason the city wanted to rush zoning revisions so quickly before the master plan, but this offended sensibilities so it didn't happen.

If you're as passionate about this as you sound, fight for the future of Providence urbanism and zoning and join us in helping form an urban advocacy group to advance just these issues. Thread about that here.

This is all relative; just because the building doesn't take up a city block, and isn't covered in polychromed brick and stone details doesn't necessarily make it somehow un-historic. All of these things work together toward creating the unforgettable character that people love about Providence. How anybody gets off knocking things like this down in order to somehow "preserve" that is beyond me, because all we're doing is removing the puzzle pieces.

I'm sorry, but I've looked at this building hard. I've pictured it remodeled, I've pictured it glowing and basking in a reborn state, and guess what? I still don't think it's worth it... It's unhistoric nature makes it unhistoric. It may be old, but it's not character-filled and not historic.

When the zoning you and we all want is upon us, the downtown economy has hit critical mass, and we live in a surface lot-free Providence, then perhaps there's a role for trying to keep every single "puzzle piece" and restore them to splendor. But until that time comes, they own the land and have some degree of free reign to decide what to do with it.

I was at those initial Sierra Suite approval meetings, and the question on my (and everyone's) mind was, in short: is this THE fight. The fight where you stand up for pro-pedestrian/anti-auto issues and scrape and threaten and cajole and protest to prevent the loss of a historic treasure to The Man? My answer to that question, looking at that existing building and the fact the Sierra Suites seemed ready to make compromises was, "Hell no. The BIG BATTLE for Providence's soul is not this building, this day." Sure, PPS and AS220 were there making obligatory "This is an old building, gosh we shouldn't knock it down..." arguments, but they were just that, obligatory and without any real passion because, frankly, that building doesn't inspire any real passion. Even it's advocates had no idea when it was built, who built it, when its ugly modern facade was plastered on, etc, and no one was jumping up to volunteer to find this stuff out.

Especially as some of us go forward and look to start the advocacy group, there is the unfortunate lession that every battle isn't worth fighting, and this was one of them. How many "Save our Cuban Rev Building!" websites, ProJo editorials, letters to the editor, etc have you seen? None. It's not that the issue isn't worthwhile, it's that the particular building isn't that worthwhile.

And there is at least some urban friendly benefit here: no surface parking (it actually takes up an existing surface lot), sidewalk fronting retail, big windows, some setback, good height. Are you going to tell a national company wanting to build a hotel here that, "Sorry, unless it can fit in that existing three story building, you can't do it." Is that the kind of business reputation you want to develop as a city over that building?

If excellent planning and excellent, pro-urban/anti-parking lot zoning results in the future, this will start to become an argument that we won't need to worry as much about because it'll become law, and not argument.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 2 months later...
dmsutton Crossroads

dmsutton

Posted
Posted

Rumor has it that New Japan will be closing, after 30 years, because the numbers just don't add up for them to move. I would personally rather keep a downtown institution alive than see with this godawful extended stay hotel every day.

Seems as though the city is being sanitized bit by bit and we're losing a lot of interesting and amazing places in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.