PROPOSED: Hotel Sierra (aka Sierra Suites)

[Pseudo_Work]

What preservationists? Does PPS even exist anymore?

[Liamlunchtray]

They should never issue a demo permit for a downtown building unless a building permit is issued at the same time. I am so sick and tired of this nonsense.

[Garris]

I seem to remember PPS and the CHNA fighting for the building that was demolished for this project, and a lot of other people claiming it was of no historical value. Well, it's certainly worth something now that it's gone.

[bhooley]

In my view, again, this was never a preservation issue, it was an urban issue. Given the choice, I still absolutely want the Sierra Hotel.

I was at those meetings where the PPS and AS220 argued to keep the building and, trust me, their argument was a passionless, knee-jerk exercise. No one had any idea when the building was built, by whom, or the original facade appearance since it's had several redos over the years (and no one knew how many redo's were done), etc. Beyond arguing that it's older than some other buildings there and represented its era of merchantile architecture (whatever that was), there was little substance. The big issue at that time, the relevant urban issue then, was that the initial render of the hotel looked terrible, and that's what everyone was fired up about.

I find that urban issues and preservation issues get mixed up often in Providence, largely because there isn't a strong urban tradition or strong urban groups here and because the preservation groups, which are much stronger, end up arguing for things that, more times than not, result in good urbanism. But the two are not the same... We're not all angry in this thread because we want that old building back so badly, we're upset we have another hole in our streetscape where something was promised to be...

For me, this is yet another example of destroying existing urban fabric before its replacment urban fabric is secured and assured. Like Liam said, demo permits should only be granted after building permits.

To government savy folks, how does something like this get accomplished? Who do we lobby?

[Cotuit]

ProJo is working on a story on this. I'm writing up some comments for the reporter now, I assume it will be in tomorrow's paper.

They should never issue a demo permit for a downtown building unless a building permit is issued at the same time. I am so sick and tired of this nonsense.

[runawayjim]

ProJo is working on a story on this. I'm writing up some comments for the reporter now, I assume it will be in tomorrow's paper.

This is actually how it is supposed to work. The developer gets approval to build, gets demo permit, demos, cries about being poor, and gets approved to park cars instead.

I will just note, the developer of this project has made no public comment about it, yet.

[Pseudo_Work]

In my view, again, this was never a preservation issue, it was an urban issue. Given the choice, I still absolutely want the Sierra Hotel.

I was at those meetings where the PPS and AS220 argued to keep the building and, trust me, their argument was a passionless, knee-jerk exercise. No one had any idea when the building was built, by whom, or the original facade appearance since it's had several redos over the years (and no one knew how many redo's were done), etc. Beyond arguing that it's older than some other buildings there and represented its era of merchantile architecture (whatever that was), there was little substance. The big issue at that time, the relevant urban issue then, was that the initial render of the hotel looked terrible, and that's what everyone was fired up about.

I find that urban issues and preservation issues get mixed up often in Providence, largely because there isn't a strong urban tradition or strong urban groups here and because the preservation groups, which are much stronger, end up arguing for things that, more times than not, result in good urbanism. But the two are not the same... We're not all angry in this thread because we want that old building back so badly, we're upset we have another hole in our streetscape where something was promised to be...

For me, this is yet another example of destroying existing urban fabric before its replacment urban fabric is secured and assured. Like Liam said, demo permits should only be granted after building permits.

To government savy folks, how does something like this get accomplished? Who do we lobby?

[jencoleslaw]

Well, given the choice, i'd still pick old building that some think has no value but actually has tenants, businesses and pays taxes and the like, over a greazy parking lot.

[Garris]

Well, given the choice, i'd still pick old building that some think has no value but actually has tenants, businesses and pays taxes and the like, over a greazy parking lot.

[jencoleslaw]

• Performance bonds

• Agreements that with demo permit comes a deal that if you don't build, you forfeit the land to the city to put out an RFP and you get paid by the next developer after a building is put on the site.

• Try a "fix it first" program rather than always building new. you might not remember what a sh*thole the building that Bravo is in was before someone restored it.

• Give the preservation people a chance to save buildings rather than tear them down at the blink of an eye.

• Come up with creative solutions, not cheap ones.

• Quit with the lying about whether buildings are "dangerous" or not.

That would be a good start.

[Pseudo_Work]

• Performance bonds

• Agreements that with demo permit comes a deal that if you don't build, you forfeit the land to the city to put out an RFP and you get paid by the next developer after a building is put on the site.

• Try a "fix it first" program rather than always building new. you might not remember what a sh*thole the building that Bravo is in was before someone restored it.

• Give the preservation people a chance to save buildings rather than tear them down at the blink of an eye.

• Come up with creative solutions, not cheap ones.

• Quit with the lying about whether buildings are "dangerous" or not.

That would be a good start.

[Cotuit]

Perfectly stated.

[FjmArch]

• Performance bonds

• Agreements that with demo permit comes a deal that if you don't build, you forfeit the land to the city to put out an RFP and you get paid by the next developer after a building is put on the site.

• Try a "fix it first" program rather than always building new. you might not remember what a sh*thole the building that Bravo is in was before someone restored it.

• Give the preservation people a chance to save buildings rather than tear them down at the blink of an eye.

• Come up with creative solutions, not cheap ones.

• Quit with the lying about whether buildings are "dangerous" or not.

That would be a good start.

[Pseudo_Work]

Unforutuantly, I do remember the crap hole the Packard building was prior to... The firm I was working for were the architects for the restoration of that building and I had the pleasure of measuring the space. Of course it was not as bad as "THE EARLE BUILDING" RI Housing's second office building. Alternative lifestyle bar on the first floor with hourly rooms for rent on the second and third lets just say EWWWW!

I agree with your premise Jen... the city needs to place some controls on developers

I'll take your second point one step further, the payment by the later developer should be for the assesed "land only" value at the time the first developer purchased the property. Sort of a modified eminent domain scenario.

[FjmArch]

Remind me again, which is the Packard building? I'm a bad preservationist, I can't picture it.

[Cotuit]

http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content...12.411e553.html

Providence can’t keep allowing developers to knock down buildings without assurance that the projects will go forward, or at least some sort of financial penalty if it does not, said Jeff Nickerson, of the urban-growth group Greater City: Providence.

“We are for some reason continuing to knock holes in that remaining urban grid. The Hotel Sierra site, the old circular gas station at Atwells and Broadway, the old Public Safety Complex, the One-Ten Westminster site, Grant’s Lot ... What is next? The Arcade?” Nickerson said.

“I suspect that in many ways the city is encouraging unadulterated demolition. Developers can bring financially shaky proposals to the table, knowing full well that if their financing falls through, they’ll be allowed to park cars on the vacant lot. The Procaccianti Group has even gone so far as to cry financial hardship about the minimum landscape requirements for a surface lot. The city needs to start defending itself against these sorts of predatory developers,” he said.

And he shuddered at the idea that the property might become another temporary parking lot, saying the city should immediately write that option out of the zoning ordinance.

[jencoleslaw]

"Every time this happens"? How many more times does it need to happen before there are changes to the regulations? When there are no buildings left? Come on, Thom! I know you're just being diplomatic, but HONESTLY!

PS nice quotes Jef. You're quite eloquent.

[JimmyGreaves]

Well stated, Jef. Thanks.

[eltron]

JUST to be fair, the credit markets are entirely screwed up, and projects are much more difficult to predictably move forward than they were a year ago (thank you Fannie and Freddie). Its a very tough time right now.

But the sentiment is very much understood...

[Cotuit]

JUST to be fair, the credit markets are entirely screwed up, and projects are much more difficult to predictably move forward than they were a year ago (thank you Fannie and Freddie). Its a very tough time right now.

[jencoleslaw]

The fickleness of the market is a perfect reason why all things should be lined up before the building comes down. If construction doesn't start til financing is in place, than most certainly DEstruction shouldn't start until then either.

[Cotuit]

I'm blaming the city here too. Look at OneTen, a proposal to build the tallest building in the city and fill it with luxury condos. It is the city's job to ask the developer, "are you sure you can build this?" And furthermore, ensure that they are sure and protect the city and its people when the developer falls through. The city should have been asking OneTen, "OK, if this can't be financed, what is plan B for this site, and don't say parking because that is not an option." And the city should use whatever tools it can, performance bonds and the like. Providence still works on a wink and a smile. That's not a way to run a city.

[eltron]

The fickleness of the market is a perfect reason why all things should be lined up before the building comes down. If construction doesn't start til financing is in place, than most certainly DEstruction shouldn't start until then either.

[Cotuit]

But, I would be careful what you wish for re: even MORE regulation on development. Its a very very very difficult game as it is. You put some more restrictions on it, could chill it even further.

[eltron]

If tearing down buildings is easy, no one will try to buy these surface lots. If tearing down buildings is hard, the parking lots become worth more as development parcels, maybe encouraging the owners to sell for redevelopment.